[HN Gopher] News from WWDC22: WebKit Features in Safari 16 Beta
___________________________________________________________________
News from WWDC22: WebKit Features in Safari 16 Beta
Author : monkin
Score : 80 points
Date : 2022-06-06 19:13 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (webkit.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (webkit.org)
| saurik wrote:
| I am confused... wasn't Web Push already supported on macOS?
| arecurrence wrote:
| "Container Queries" WOW! This is a KILLER feature. Chrome doesn't
| even have this yet.
| endisneigh wrote:
| These are all very welcome. I'll never understand why people
| don't want choices and want their tech to be intentionally
| limited.
|
| The flag for web push has been available, albeit non functional
| since 15.3.
|
| Apple needs to hurry and simply allow for alternative app stores
| as well.
| threeseed wrote:
| Because choices come with consequences.
|
| Web push whilst great for developers and some use cases has
| also meant dealing with spam and user hostile behaviour. I have
| 50+ websites that I have to block from sending me web push
| notifications. It's yet another thing making the web less
| enjoyable.
|
| Likewise alternative app stores mean that I will inevitably
| have dozens of companies to deal with for refunds, subscription
| cancellations etc. And many of them will be driven by the need
| to make money from the store and not the interests of end
| users.
| rektide wrote:
| > _Just when you thought there weren't enough different kinds of
| workers, there's a new type of worker..._
|
| SharedWorkers shipping Chrome _4_ in January 2010[1] _!!_ Firefox
| eventually shipped in 2014 (Firefox 29).
|
| > _...in Safari_
|
| Haha yeah. Maybe re-do your marketing on this one.
|
| It took Apple _well over a decade_ to support a basic, essential
| function required for webapps to be able to have elementary
| cross-tab capabilities. Apple kept the web _down_ on this one,
| super super hard. Absolutely brutal punching down. They
| mercilessly said they would not do it, that it was not going to
| happen. And that kept the whole web down. iOS said no. The titan
| has spoken.
|
| [1] https://caniuse.com/sharedworkers
| olkingcole wrote:
| Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it just entirely
| about competition with the app store? That they don't want to
| invest in features for apps on a platform "owned" by their
| largest competitor that then compete with apps on their own
| platform? On the app store Apple makes 15%, on the web they
| make zero and Google likely gets whatever ad revenue. I'm not
| defending Apple, Safari causes has caused me professional pain
| in the past, but it seems predictable.
| rektide wrote:
| It's a mystery! Who knows? But it's not a mystery.
|
| There's definitely good people working to advance the web at
| Apple. That's clear. Apple's even hired up some. But there's
| still endless struggles, endless conflicts, huge huge parts
| of the map Apple insists are bad for users that they will not
| do. Like SharedWorkers, which until recently they insisted
| they would not do & were bad for users.
| threeseed wrote:
| > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it just entirely
| about competition with the app store
|
| At a previous WWDC they talked about service workers and how
| they have the potential to significantly impact the
| performance and battery life of devices if abused.
|
| And so a lot of effort has been made trying to isolate and
| optimise them.
| [deleted]
| dmitriid wrote:
| > Safari 16 introduces a re-architecture of WebKit's
| accessibility support on macOS that delivers improved
| performance and increased responsiveness
|
| This is a magnitudes more important improvement and pushing the
| web forward than pretending that whateverworkers are a thing
| that is usable beyond very few convoluted examples (even if
| those examples end up running in production somewhere)
| sumy23 wrote:
| When has accessibility pushed things forward? In my mind,
| accessibility is about parity with some existing standard,
| not about pushing the envelope forward.
| SahAssar wrote:
| Accessibility has made some sites and apps expose their
| data in more-easily understandable ways. In general if you
| need to make your interfaces accessible you will also make
| them easier to parse.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Webworkers are a pretty critical foundational component of a
| lot of apps these days. You can probably skate by without
| them on simple cases but they are up there with ES6+, fetch,
| virtual DOM, etc.
| coldtea wrote:
| We had that functionality back in the 80s even, with anothe
| type of app, called a "native app". Those apps are not why
| the web was created, it's just using browsers as a poor
| man's cross platform sandboxed app delivery mechanism...
| thawaya3113 wrote:
| There was a time when Apple supporters were huge fans of
| web apps. When Gmail and the like meant that it was
| possible to have a decent experience on a Mac as well,
| because software developers offered web apps. (Let's not
| talk about that one year when Web Apps were the best
| thing since sliced bread before someone convinced Jobs
| that native apps on iOS is actually a good idea).
|
| But now that it's in Apple's financial interests (not
| even its users' interests) to push for native apps so
| Apple can collect their tax, the Apple supporters have
| seamlessly switched sides.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| The web was created to serve users. Users benefit from
| rich web apps.
| kazinator wrote:
| Native apps is not why the web was created by Berners-Lee
| and gang, but a certain segment of the web has been
| chasing the desktop-like experience since, on,
| 1990-something. The obsession with the desktop
| experience, and the associated inferiority complex, are
| pretty much part of the web DNA.
| rektide wrote:
| > _The obsession with the desktop experience,_
|
| The "obsession" is with having a good common platform for
| development. Powered by some of the fastest rendering
| engines on the planet, some of the fastest language
| runtimes out there. With an unbelievably joyous
| continuous development brought about by fantastic live
| tools. For over a decade, with ongoing & continuous &
| highly visible improvement.
|
| It's disgraceful what sad moaning & endless disdain
| people who like working here have to suffer, how berated
| we get for seeing potential & chasing it. Getting
| insulted & slandered is so common, this is so typical, so
| regular; endless dogpiles by the haters, and it's so
| cheap, such an expression of negativity & bias & cruelty.
|
| I never enjoyed writing Win32 or .NET. I never enjoyed
| writing Qt. I never enjoyed writing FLTK nor GTK. These
| systems did not spark joy. The native platforms always
| felt crap, were so much ceremony & encumbrance, and so
| controlled & crufty & verbose to work with. On the web, I
| had a live canvas of hypertext, with rich information,
| ready to go, with a couple lines of HTML. And then I
| could sprinkle in programmability, add some JavaScript &
| start to move & shake things. This was an endlessly
| rewarding loop, was pure joy. The web is joyful. It keeps
| bringing better & better capabilities, more and more joy.
| People can go play with WebMIDI now, we can work with
| Gamepads, or magnenometers or accelerometers. This is
| fun, this is amazing. It works on all devices (some iOS
| exceptions may apply).
|
| > _the associated inferiority complex,_
|
| News-flash: the web won. It's creaming everything else.
| It's where jobs & development are done today, the
| default-go-to. It's just better. Webapps like VSCode run
| stupid fast & do everything better than native did, and
| because they're built on JS & the web they have sick sick
| sickeningly awesome plugins that were fast & easy to
| build.
|
| It's a tragedy that there's so many grumpy hurt feeling
| abound, around this great & good rise, that such a
| wonderful fantastic capable & competent system has so
| many cranky sad mopey feelings. If there's anyone that
| feels an inferiority complex, it's definitely native
| people. They will _not_ simmer down & chill the frak out
| with their endless bemoaning & whining & belittling of
| the web. The web is constantly endlessly dragged on, shat
| on, in thread after thread after thread, by people acting
| high & mighty & telling us, effectively, how dare we? I
| didn't give you permission to be awesome! My skills are
| the only ones that count! What you do isn't right!
|
| So again,
|
| > _the desktop experience,_
|
| This is a relic, ancient dust to us. Our medium is
| networked by default, can be reached instantly via any
| device. We have rich servers providing powerful
| capabilities behind our thick-client user interfaces.
| Network architectures & information design underpin &
| shape our implementation decisions, are considered as we
| model & extend. The word API? It basically means "web
| interface" more than it means "native library interface"
| for most people now- because the web is awesome, because
| what we do is visible & engageable & more a part of the
| world & active than any lonely, isolated, compiled-down
| desktop app ever can be.
|
| That we happen to also have buttons & click on things
| doesn't make us the same.
|
| I will try to insult your platform a little less in the
| future. But please ya'll, you too need to show a modicum
| of respect. Having nothing but degrading insults for the
| web is small, it's out of touch, and the complaining is
| seemingly bottomless: here ya'll are, in a submission
| about the web, once again complaining that it's
| advancing.
| SahAssar wrote:
| I don't see apple pushing some sort of open standard for
| how to write native apps that is cross platform. Google
| has done some efforts (like flutter), but all of those
| seem to tie the library/runtime to it instead of trying
| to make it an open standard.
|
| The web is the best standardized, cross platform, multi-
| runtime app platform we have.
| sumy23 wrote:
| Could you execute those native apps using only a simple
| URL in a secure environment in under a second without any
| need for installation or cleanup?
| bhouston wrote:
| WebXR please! Every one browser and platform has it including
| Oculus. Apple you are single handed holding back the AR industry
| here.
| [deleted]
| astlouis44 wrote:
| This.
| richardanaya wrote:
| My kingdom for OffscreenCanvas
| [deleted]
| sccxy wrote:
| Just make it installable from App Store.
|
| Safari messes up rendering engine all the time and creates bugs
| in many websites.
|
| Usually fixes are fast, but it will take ages to get the fix to
| iOS update.
| corrral wrote:
| Keeping Mobile Safari releases in step with OS releases is
| helpful for developers who use webviews in their apps--which is
| lots of them.
| MichaelEstes wrote:
| I've had to opposite experience as someone who's worked
| extensively with platforms that utilize webviews, when Safari
| 15 released it broke a lot of WebGL things with their shift
| to using Metal and all I can say to users that are
| experiencing problems is update your OS or disable the
| experimental feature to use Metal with Safari, which both
| feel like awful answers. Safari has become the modern IE in
| my mind.
| corrral wrote:
| Meanwhile some other developer is really glad their
| software, that only supports iOS [previous-version] and
| hasn't been updated for the latest Safari, isn't generating
| shitloads of bug reports because some of their users
| updated the browser separate from the OS, and they aren't
| having to test multiple OS/webview combos.
|
| Your particular case might have worked out better, but _in
| general_ being able to test on an OS version and not have
| that change out from under you is really helpful.
| thawaya3113 wrote:
| Tying web browsers to the OS release was a disaster on
| the Mac and PCs, to the extent that both Apple and
| Microsoft have stopped doing that.
|
| I don't understand why iOS would be any different.
| corrral wrote:
| It's a fundamental piece of functionality that you target
| with a release, if you're using webviews, and a _ton_ of
| apps do. It 's possible to argue that it _shouldn 't_ be,
| but it is, and that does come with some real benefits for
| developers.
|
| On desktop, the popular solution to the same problem is
| to bundle an entire web browser.
| culi wrote:
| > Safari has become the modern IE in my mind.
|
| Fun fact: even with the latest release of Chrome, Safari is
| surpassing Chrome in Interop 2022[0]
|
| Say what you will about Apple, but I think the team behind
| Safari has been doing some fantastic work to make up for
| its reputation
|
| [0] https://wpt.fyi/interop-2022
| ydnaclementine wrote:
| unfortunately no webm?
| corrral wrote:
| Damn, that's the single feature I want them to add most.
|
| Literally only for porn--I doubt I'd ever have noticed the
| feature was missing, otherwise--but still.
| ArchOversight wrote:
| WebM support is already in Safari...
|
| Visit https://dl8.webmfiles.org/big-buck-bunny_trailer.webm for
| example and it will just play.
|
| From: https://www.webmfiles.org/demo-files/ (where its embedded
| with a JavaScript player)
|
| Also see: https://caniuse.com/?search=webm
| sccxy wrote:
| Your example confirms that it is NOT working on iOS 15.5 at
| the moment...
|
| It is not javascript player. It is plain old html video tag.
| j1elo wrote:
| Can confirm over here that iOS 15.5 (just recently updated
| a few days ago) doesn't open the WebM file in Safari. It
| just offers to download it.
| ArchOversight wrote:
| You mentioned Safari, and Safari exists on two platforms.
| It works on macOS.
| skeletal88 wrote:
| Well.. now Safari still is the hated browser to support, instead
| of IE, because of Apples backwardness
| [deleted]
| cogman10 wrote:
| It's just incredible to me that Apple saw how much people hated
| IE and decided "You know what, let's do them one better".
|
| Really doesn't help that they've pull so far back from open
| standards. They used to champion OpenGL, OpenCL, and open web
| standards, now they are working like Balmer's Microsoft.
| Everything internal and they sabotage open standards. Either by
| not implementing them, or obstructing all evolution at the
| standards committees.
| rektide wrote:
| IE maybe have been a default choice, but at least it was a
| choice.
| astlouis44 wrote:
| Was hoping to see WebXR and WebGPU show up, these two
| technologies are going to allow an alternative distribution
| channel for game and app developers, which comprises the vast
| majority of Apple's services revenue from their app store tax.
| [deleted]
| scraplab wrote:
| Finally, push notifications in iOS coming in... oh, 2023.
|
| > "look for Web Push for iOS and iPadOS in 2023."
| google234123 wrote:
| That is just next year :P We are already halfway through this
| year, right?
|
| Anyway, I look forward to every shitty site asking for
| permission to send notifications adding to the trillions of
| requests a year...
| corrral wrote:
| All the denied sites shitting up my notification-apps list
| with noise isn't welcome, either.
|
| The whole thing's a mis-feature. If it must exist at all,
| sites shouldn't be able to prompt for it, but simply
| advertise the functionality and let browsers add a little
| button or something for the user to _actively_ engage with if
| they want to see a permissions prompt. Like the way browsers
| used to handle sites that advertised RSS feeds.
| zdragnar wrote:
| > and let browsers add a little button or something for the
| user to actively engage with
|
| Meh, you'll just get full screen modals begging you to push
| the button. So long as a feature which (ostensibly) drives
| engagement exists, every ad based website is going to do
| whatever they can to get you to use it.
|
| There are some really good use cases for it, but I think
| the balance is tipped by the far too many bad (for the
| user) use cases.
| corrral wrote:
| Having seen it in the wild I agree that it's more trouble
| than it's worth, and we'd be better off if the whole
| feature was ditched until/unless it can get a serious re-
| think. I'd be very surprised if the ratio of unwanted-to-
| wanted web-push messages is better than 10:1. I'd not be
| at all surprised if it's closer to 100:1.
| google234123 wrote:
| A mozilla study showed that sites already try and show
| <<100s billion notifications to users a year.
|
| > Notification prompts are very unpopular. On Release,
| about 99% of notification prompts go unaccepted, with 48%
| being actively denied by the user.
|
| So 99%+ are spam and the rest are probably users who
| accidentally hit accept.
| dave5104 wrote:
| > Users opt into notifications by first indicating interest
| through a user gesture -- such as clicking a button. Then,
| they'll be prompted to give permission for your site or app
| to send notifications. Users will be able to view and
| manage notifications in Notifications Center, and customize
| styles and turn notifications off per website in
| Notifications Settings.
|
| Looks like there _will_ be some interaction required to
| prompt it.
|
| That being said, hoping there's a browser-level option to
| just turn it off.
| hbn wrote:
| I came here to ask about that line.
|
| Is that user flow described actually a requirement
| somehow, or is that just an "ideal scenario"? Cause right
| after that it says "If you've already implemented Web
| Push for your web app or website using industry best
| practices, it will automatically work in Safari" and
| existing implementations don't require a button press
| that they used in their example. Facebook just pops up
| the browser prompts to allow or block as soon as you
| visit the page, as do many news sites and other stuff I
| don't want notifications from.
|
| Maybe the "using industry best practices" part is key,
| and they somehow will block implementations like
| Facebook.
| google234123 wrote:
| It should be a browser-level option to just turn it ON.
| perardi wrote:
| Push it back to 2033, save us from the pain.
|
| ...OK, that's too dismissive. I do know that certain web apps
| and sites have legitimate uses for push notifications.
|
| But I encounter these far, far more often on news sites, where
| I profoundly _do not want_ notifications, ever.
|
| Probably too convoluted of a "power user" setting for Apple to
| consider, but I would rather have a very strict opt-in
| whitelist where I proactively enter sites where I actually do
| want notifications.
| culi wrote:
| I think this is a big step towards more PWA support. Would
| love a world where the alternative to building native was
| just building a PWA instead of building to some other
| framework that only exists as an abstraction to interact with
| a few specific platforms.
|
| That being said, I definitely hope it's off by default
| Klonoar wrote:
| You would still need to grant access, so...
| elxr wrote:
| > where I proactively enter sites where I actually do want
| notifications.
|
| Isn't this how it works in Firefox/Chrome right now? I
| routinely get prompts from websites asking for push
| notification permission, which I always deny. Can't imagine
| Safari not doing the same thing.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| It's so strange to see how many of these features not in Safari
| Preview.
|
| I'm so confused why Safari Preview exists. It's seems like
| features in Preview rarely graduate to mainline Safari - yet
| mainline Safari will get features that were never tested in
| Preview.
| sccxy wrote:
| Wishlist:
|
| * controllable PWA install prompt
|
| * Keep GPS working after screen lock or app change and then
| return
|
| * Wake lock
| endisneigh wrote:
| I'd be surprised if Apple implements the prompt since they've
| been careful to implement the bare minimum.
| thrusong wrote:
| I would love a PWA install prompt. The typical iOS user finds
| it weird to go Share > Add to Home Screen.
| productceo wrote:
| Still no abolition of policy suppressing PWAs to 50MB?
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-06 23:00 UTC)