Re: [webvr] Chrome WebVR avaliable only on secure origins

But,

Given that this whole thing seems to be a foregone conclusion-- I haven't
seen any sympathy for the dev on this thread in two years-- can us unwashed
web developers get a little help in the form of the following:

- Continue support for debug flags in the browsers? e.g. a new flag in the
spirit of

--allow-file-access-from-files


- Provide basic tutorials and information on the easiest ways to set up
secure servers, and pointers to setup steps for existing hosting services
such as Linode... ?


Tony



On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Tony Parisi <tparisi@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 voice added to the chorus... this is really worrisome. I felt the same
> about the fullscreen restrictions when they were first being discussed
> coming on two years now.
>
> Not only does this threaten the open web but it hampers development. Used
> to be, like Sean said, that all it took to get going was a text editor and
> a free server. Now you have to apply for certs and muck with setup. Hell
> you might as well just publish a native app to the Apple or Google store.
>
> Tony
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Martin Splitt <mr.avgp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Right, with all clarifications in place, I think it's time to go with my
>> personal opinion.
>>
>> I find the limitations of APIs such as the full screen mode, webrtc and
>> WebVR worrying.
>>
>> It puts limitations on sharing and embedding across different content and
>> ignores the fact that a lot of necessary work to get encrypted traffic for
>> everybody without the hassle that it still is.
>>
>> It's great to see that services like Let's Encrypt and Github Pages,
>> Zeit, Cloudflare working towards that, but it's not the open web we want..
>>
>> I still wonder what the benefits are (and my attempt to assume arguments
>> for the proponents have been demonstrated to be inconsistent).
>>
>> On the other hand: The issue of HTTPS everywhere is more than just WebVR,
>> thanks to HTTP/2 being SSL only.
>>
>> I wonder where all this will go, but I doubt WebVR needs to enforce this..
>>
>> Cheers 🍻
>> Am 13.07.2016 4:08 nachm. schrieb "Jaakko Manninen" <jaakko@vizor.io>:
>>
>>> I agree that requiring SSL will undemocratise WebVR because getting SSL
>>> can be quite a challenge and incurs a cost. That's not the open web
>>> anymore.
>>>
>>> I'm also worried about embedding, an important use case for Vizor.io is
>>> to be able to embed your production into any web page.
>>>
>>> Overall I think this change is too prohibitive and not necessary to
>>> begin with - IMHO adequate security provisions like CORS are already in
>>> place.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Jaakko
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Sean McBeth <sean.mcbeth@primrosevr.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On LetsEncrypt: the Windows/IIS story is effectively non-existent. I
>>>> don't think it is very good to be suggesting a "solution" that effectively
>>>> dictates a platform.
>>>>
>>>> I know Windows isn't popular, and in a perfect world I'd certainly like
>>>> to be off of it, but Oculus and Valve have restricted the HMDs, under some
>>>> post-hoc rationalization that Apple and X.org have hobbled the OSes. For
>>>> once, it's *not* Microsoft's fault I'm stuck on Windows.
>>>> On Jul 13, 2016 7:07 AM, "Florian Bösch" <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If TLS would fulfill the following criteria I would not object in any
>>>>> way to its promotion of use for everything.
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. Free for any scope and use
>>>>>    2. Censorship resistant
>>>>>    3. Surveillance resistant
>>>>>    4. Fast (as in not significantly slower for all use-cases)
>>>>>    5. Decentralized
>>>>>    6. Easy to deploy
>>>>>    7. Not jurisdiction bound (no US-based root CA, no US-based "free"
>>>>>    providers)
>>>>>    8. Included with every domain (including every subdomain, or any
>>>>>    domain (wildcard))
>>>>>    9. Implementations where straightforward, bug-resistant, minimal
>>>>>    and easy to integrate, available in a variety of languages and environments
>>>>>    10. The protocol wasn't a completely lost cause of legacy gunk
>>>>>    11. It was so well engineered that even homegrown implementations
>>>>>    of it would be easy to get right
>>>>>    12. It would not impose various restrictions on the use of
>>>>>    networks, that present a restriction of how networks used to be used
>>>>>
>>>>> TLS is so far away from all of this, that I find it fundamentally
>>>>> objectionable to promote its use universally. If you want to use TLS as it
>>>>> exists, fine. Enforcing it on everybody: principled absolute nono.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Chris Van Wiemeersch <
>>>>> cvan@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to dispute the very legitimate points addressed in the past few
>>>>>> threads, just FYI it's possible to start Chrome and Firefox such that a
>>>>>> local web server is not needed (for three.js/A-Frame/WebVR development, for
>>>>>> example):
>>>>>> https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/wiki/How-to-run-things-locally#content-loaded-from-external-files
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I try to link to that page in project READMEs and documentation. Just
>>>>>> trying to spread the knowledge, but obviously I'm not dismissing the other
>>>>>> points.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same-origin policy is a hassle, yes. It's also the sandbox that
>>>>>> enables folks to load a web page and not be afraid of getting a virus.
>>>>>> FWIW, IME, most (non-super-technical) folks I've encountered understand
>>>>>> this. And they're the same folks who get scared when they see contextless
>>>>>> permission prompts and blindly accept them because… all my friends use
>>>>>> Whatsapp or Snapchat. Again, not an excuse. It's just the landscape today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For folks interested, Anne van Kesteren (standards guru at Mozilla)
>>>>>> has written quite a few good pieces on his blog about these very topics.
>>>>>> Though he's advocated for the same-origin policy (for the aforementioned
>>>>>> reasons), he is also critical of its hinderance to web development (and
>>>>>> consumption of web pages):
>>>>>> https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/07/web-computing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:36 AM, Sean McBeth <
>>>>>> sean.mcbeth@primrosevr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It comes to my attention that the issue with XmlHTTPRequest is not
>>>>>>> to do with secure origins, but same-origin policy. So I also have to keep
>>>>>>> track of multiple ways in which my page may not work, for no other reason
>>>>>>> than "browser refuses to do what is syntactically correct". It's a serious
>>>>>>> barrier to adoption for new developers.
>>>>>>> On Jul 13, 2016 6:29 AM, "Sean McBeth" <sean.mcbeth@primrosevr.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 13, 2016 6:04 AM, "Martin Splitt" <mr.avgp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > >> We welcome feedback, especially if this policy makes your
>>>>>>>> planned use case infeasible!
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > TLS makes all kinds of things infeasible.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Can you give a example?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For one thing, your own file system is not considered a secure
>>>>>>>> origin. I've ran into lots of people trying to get into WebVR that just
>>>>>>>> don't understand what that means. They see a page, they see they can link
>>>>>>>> to images on that page, they can double click on that file and see the
>>>>>>>> results. It never occurs to then that they need to run a local web server.
>>>>>>>> If they don't already know what that means, it's nearly impossible to
>>>>>>>> explain the indirection. Why do they need a web server when the file is
>>>>>>>> right there?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know several more people who have no idea how to setup a
>>>>>>>> self-signed certificate on their machine to be able to test features on
>>>>>>>> their own networks. OpenSSL is not that easy to install on Windows.. A
>>>>>>>> similar fiat decision was made for WebRTC. I eventually just copied the
>>>>>>>> certs off of my production site and live with the cert warnings. S terrible
>>>>>>>> solution to a stupid problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Frankly, I've been a web dev for 20 years and it feels rather
>>>>>>>> ridiculous that web dev is harder, more cumbersome *today*. I don't even
>>>>>>>> get why disabling XmlHTTPRequest was necessary, rather than restricting it
>>>>>>>> to the parent directory of the page.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with Florian. It's on Google to provide tools, not dictate
>>>>>>>> how they are used.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jaakko Manninen
>>> CTO, Vizor.io
>>> +358-44-989-1619
>>> @Vizor_VR / @kschzt
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Tony Parisi                             tparisi@gmail.com
> Follow me on Twitter!             http://twitter.com/auradeluxe
> Read my blog at                     http://www.tonyparisi.com/
> Learn WebGL                         http://learningwebgl.com/
> Mobile                                    415.902.8002
> Skype                                     auradeluxe
>
> Read my books!
> *Learning Virtual Reality*
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Learning-Virtual-Reality-Experiences-Applications/dp/1491922834
>
>
> *Programming 3D Applications in HTML5 and
> WebGLhttp://www.amazon.com/Programming-Applications-HTML5-WebGL-Visualization/dp/1449362966
> <http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Applications-HTML5-WebGL-Visualization/dp/1449362966>WebGL,
> Up and Running*
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/144932357X
>
>


-- 


Tony Parisi                             tparisi@gmail.com
Follow me on Twitter!             http://twitter.com/auradeluxe
Read my blog at                     http://www.tonyparisi.com/
Learn WebGL                         http://learningwebgl.com/
Mobile                                    415.902.8002
Skype                                     auradeluxe

Read my books!
*Learning Virtual Reality*
http://www.amazon.com/Learning-Virtual-Reality-Experiences-Applications/dp/1491922834


*Programming 3D Applications in HTML5 and
WebGLhttp://www.amazon.com/Programming-Applications-HTML5-WebGL-Visualization/dp/1449362966
<http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Applications-HTML5-WebGL-Visualization/dp/1449362966>WebGL,
Up and Running*
http://www.amazon.com/dp/144932357X

Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2016 17:45:36 UTC