Hacker News Reader

Comment by 48309248302 | Hacker News Reader

That isn't a main reason. People are going to use the internet either way. Google is making a power grab by breaking web standards (embrace, extend, extinguish), and companies like Cloudflare are enabling them.

Mozilla has marked Signed HTTP Exchanges as harmful.

View on HN

You're in this thread a lot, and you keep referencing "Mozilla has marked Signed HTTP exchanges as harmful". Is this all that important? Should Mozilla support it in 6 months as they always do with their follow-chrome-dont-lose-marketshare approach, will you also support it? In every comment, you are focusing on the "Google is evil" part of it, instead of focusing on "Are HTTP Exchanges themselves bad?", "is this an insecure protocol?", "Could it be used to impersonate a domain?".

The only reason signed HTTP Exchanges are a thing is because Google is trying to solve a problem with user experience (the URL bar). AMP and exchanges are just a different protocol and method of hosting content on a CDN. In this case, you are forced to reduce your page size and you delegate your HTML to be loaded by a third-party, contrary to that of a traditional CDN where you would (for example) create a CNAME in your DNS.

> Should Mozilla support it in 6 months as they always do with their follow-chrome-dont-lose-marketshare approach

With what, that they considered harmful, have they done that?

Encrypted Media Extensions

I'm sorry but if you believe AMP breaks web standards, then you do not understand AMP. It is built entirely from the ground up on web standards.

AMP does not work unless you include a Google hosted JS file.

From https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/learn/spe...:

> AMP HTML documents MUST

> ...

> contain a <script async src="https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"></script> tag inside their head tag.

That is not a web standard.

Wow that is disgusting. Why does it need to include remote code to function? How can they even pretend this is an open standard when it has a backdoor?

It's a subset of HTML, built on WebComponents. The subset is defined by a separate standards board and built on web technologies.

Signed HTTP Exchanges? https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/

You're completely exaggerating. Please educate yourself by reading the full conversation leading up to the "harmful" tag before spamming that link again: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/29

The point there is that is it not supported by Mozilla. Google has strong-armed publishers into implementing their websites in a restricted Google format that speeds up websites just for Google Chrome and Google Chromium-based browsers. It's an unethical power grab by Google on multiple levels.

Yes, that's a standard signed by the IETF. It's also an incredibly new feature (supported by AMP starting today).

It's not an actual standard if it's forced on everyone by a single vendor abusing its market dominance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com