Re: Final countdown for NPAPI

On 2 May 2015 at 08:11, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
wrote:

>  On 2015-05-01 23:01, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1 May 2015 at 14:12, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://blog.chromium.org/2014/11/the-final-countdown-for-npapi.html
>>
>> Reading the comments it is obviously not only me who think that Google
>> (and Microsoft) have done a major screw-up by removing a feature and not
>> offering any kind of replacement!
>>
>> Mozilla's take on this topic remains a true mystery.
>>
>> For the market however, the decision is crystal-clear: **** the Web and
>> go for Apps!
>>
>
>  Thanks for sharing.  Anders, could you say what you think the
> consequences of this are, for those not familiar with NPAPI, especially to
> web payments.
>
>  From reading the comments, it seems to suggest blocking of java,
> silverlight, flash, and facebook videos.  Is that right?
>
>  Do you think there's a direct or indirect impact on web payments?
>
>
> This really depends on what your ambition is and who you are targeting.
>
> If (for example) you would be targeting the credit-card networks, it is
> simply put not technically feasible creating anything comparable to Apple
> Pay for the Web.
>
> There was some hope that the WebCrypto.Next effort would address this but
> this activity failed and it appears that everybody nowadays has left the
> party.
>
> The browser-vendors (and just about everyone else as well) lead by Google
> have rather fled to the FIDO Alliance and what's cooking there is hard to
> say since members have to sign NDAs.  Based on their initial deliverable,
> U2F, it seems that they are focusing on the needs of "SuperProviders",
> something which I believe is the opposite to what the world in general
> wants.
>
> The W3C staff seem unable dealing with the fact that they lost to FIDO
> although there's an obvious way to regain the interest: Create technology
> for a distributed Web which effectively competes with FIDO.  OTOH, this
> would create considerable tension so I guess it won't happen in the W3C
> either.
>

This isnt a huge concern to me personally as web terminology can
incorporate FIDO, much like webmail technology incorporated email.  The
reverse is unlikely to be true.

Closed standards on the other hand are a concern.  But there's always been
a competition between open and closed, you have to pick what you prefer.


>
> From what I can see in the market and also have received privately as
> actual feedback, the world outside the (somewhat elitist and academic) W3C
> has no problems with "Apps".
>
> Anders
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2015Apr/0053.html
>
>
>
>>
>> Anders
>>
>>
>
>