W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-browserext@w3.org > November 2016

Re: Mozilla challenger to the Native Messaging spec:

From: Kris Maglione <kmaglione@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 07:08:51 -0800
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Cc: public-browserext@w3.org
Message-ID: <20161107150851.GF29592@kmaglione.localdomain>
On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 09:15:44PM +0100, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>On 2016-11-05 20:50, Kris Maglione wrote:
>>On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 03:23:30PM +0100, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>>https://flyweb.github.io/posts/2016/11/01/introducing-flyweb.html
>>
>>Sorry, but could you please explain why you think this is in any
>>way related to native messaging, let along a challenger to it?
>
>As I see it, native messaging represents one way to interact with
>local/native applications.  Flyweb seems to do this (and some more)
>but through an entirely different mechanism:
>
>"This feature allows users to find and connect to nearby devices with
> embedded web servers such as printers, thermostats and televisions"
>
>Maybe I have misunderstood something?  These devices (=applications)
>must run on another machine?  It is not obvious to me.
>
>Anyway, there are WebAppSec discussions about making localhost access more
>standardized and that's definitely a challenger to Native Messaging.

The two technologies have completely unrelated goals and 
applications. FlyWeb is for discovering and communicating with 
devices and servers on the local network. Native messaging is 
for securely launching and communicating with applications on 
the same machine. And while FlyWeb could conceivably be used for 
some of the same purposes as native messaging, that's not its 
intention.
Received on Monday, 7 November 2016 15:09:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:10:00 UTC