Re: Bloomberg recommending Browser Extension Community Group. Vote yes!

On 2015-05-08 17:38, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> I saw the other (NFC/BLE native function access-focused as an example) but there is only one supporter so far.

Sure.  It is me, the proposer.

> I think these are two very different use cases, but will bring up similar things
 > to be considered (native APIs as accessed through the browser extension, or
 > an explicit native API call mechanism). It might be good to consider both in
 > the same CG, though IMO the browser extension use case seems more feasible.

This is up for proofing :-)

The Bloomberg proposal [presumably] is about unifying
Chrome: https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/api_index
Safari: https://developer.apple.com/library/safari/documentation/UserExperience/Reference/SafariExtensionsReference/index.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40009800
Microsoft: in flux at the moment
Mozilla: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK/Guides#sdk-infrastructure
which surely must be a gargantuan effort.

My proposal is about adding a single method to browsers like
navigator.nativeConnect ("name of native application")
and reusing existing "AppStores" for extension distribution.

Anders

>
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anders Rundgren [mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 10:44 PM
> To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; 'Erik Anderson'; Web Payments CG; public-webpayments-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Bloomberg recommending Browser Extension Community Group. Vote yes!
>
> On 2015-05-08 07:09, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
>> Sounds like a great idea.
>> I added our support and it looks like this put it over the fence.
>
> As I as have been jumping up and down regarding this topic for months, I'm of course very interested.  I don't think the CG description really tells the entire story because there are two fundamentally different browser extensions:
>
> - HTML5/JS-based extensions which may have additional APIs which if used typically require certification
>
> - Extensions that (in some way) "hook" into the native layer
>
> Google and Mozilla have created (completely different) mixtures of HTML5/JS extensions with native support which I consider unfortunate; The Google solution requires a sys-admin-like install of native code + an "AppStore" for the HTML5/JS extension.
>
> Although there's a huge (documented) interest [1,2] for a standardized extension for accessing the native layer, it seems that this is outside of W3C's "jurisdiction".
>
> Now there are two extension proposed browser CGs:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-security/2015Apr/0012.html
>
> Mr. Rybka is free to contact me any day!
>
> Cheers,
> Anders
>
> 1] http://blog.chromium.org/2014/11/the-final-countdown-for-npapi.html
> 2] https://twitter.com/shimonamit/status/571046844488245248
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Erik Anderson [mailto:eanders@pobox.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 2:16 PM
>> To: public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
>> Subject: Bloomberg recommending Browser Extension Community Group. Vote yes!
>>
>> A Bloomberg colleague is recommending creating a Browser Extension
>> Community Group
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/community/blog/2015/05/07/proposed-group-browser-extension-community-group/
>>
>> Please vote yes. This may be needed for Payments anyways.
>>
>> Erik Anderson
>> Bloomberg R&D & Co-chair W3C Web Payments IG/SG
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Friday, 8 May 2015 16:15:29 UTC