7 ms·

No, you're right. Portal is effectively iframe without all the security protections.

by ccnafr 7y ago

Ajedi32 7y ago
It's kinda the opposite actually. iframes didn't provide sufficient security to do the sort of things Google wanted to be able to do with them, so they had to design a new standard with better protections: https://github.com/WICG/portals/blob/master/explainer.md#why-do-we-need-a-new-html-tag-why-not-use-iframe https://github.com/WICG/portals/blob/master/explainer.md#why...
Touche 7y ago
I don't understand the cynicism people have for this idea. All they did was say "wouldn't it be cool if you could have nice animations in between pages" and built a proof-of-concept. It's not a finished product. They aren't forcing it into a standard. It's a demo of something that would be cool. So why the heck are people opposed to that?
- vernie 7y ago
  Well you certainly can't raise a stink after it's in the standard.
  - Touche 7y ago
    My point is, portal isn't "an iframe without all the security protections." portal is a demo of animating between pages. What it becomes from there is completely flexible.
    - bzbarsky 7y ago
      Things are not "flexible" once they have been shipped on by default, typically. Changing behavior or removing at that point becomes very hard, requiring usage measurements, etc.
      - Touche 7y ago
        This is not on by default.
        bzbarsky 7y ago
        Yes, I am aware. But that's related to how happy Google is with it, not to whether it's standardized in any way.
    - skymt 7y ago
      Animation isn't the point of the portal element, it's to allow cross-site navigation to an embedded page without reloading.
- amiga-workbench 7y ago
  IE5 has proprietary page transition animations, works pretty nicely actually. https://people.apache.org/~jim/NewArchitect/webrevu/1998/12_11/webauthors/12_11_98_4.html https://people.apache.org/~jim/NewArchitect/webrevu/1998/12_...
- andrekandre 7y ago
  when you are google, unilaterally releasing and pushing a major new feature for “the web” has an entirely different meaning and implication to it compared to, sadly, mozilla, or some other player (even apple to some extent) because of their huge market/mind share. in that scenario “wouldn’t it be cool” is not a good enough reason, and for a major feature such as this, skepticism is healthy and warranted... the “web browser” is slowly being transformed into “the google browser” and we have no one to blame but ourselves
  - Touche 7y ago
    The consensus opinion seems to be, from this thread and elsewhere, "While Google is not doing anything wrong by standards in this case, because they have the power/potential to do something wrong by standards we must oppose this as well."

No, you're right. Portal is effectively iframe without all the security protections.

by ccnafr 7y ago

No, you're right. Portal is effectively iframe without all the security protections.

It's kinda the opposite actually. iframes didn't provide sufficient security to do the sort of things Google wanted to be able to do with them, so they had to design a new standard with better protections: https://github.com/WICG/portals/blob/master/explainer.md#why-do-we-need-a-new-html-tag-why-not-use-iframe https://github.com/WICG/portals/blob/master/explainer.md#why...

Touche 7y ago

I don't understand the cynicism people have for this idea. All they did was say "wouldn't it be cool if you could have nice animations in between pages" and built a proof-of-concept. It's not a finished product. They aren't forcing it into a standard. It's a demo of something that would be cool. So why the heck are people opposed to that?

vernie 7y ago
Well you certainly can't raise a stink after it's in the standard.
- Touche 7y ago
  My point is, portal isn't "an iframe without all the security protections." portal is a demo of animating between pages. What it becomes from there is completely flexible.
  - bzbarsky 7y ago
    Things are not "flexible" once they have been shipped on by default, typically. Changing behavior or removing at that point becomes very hard, requiring usage measurements, etc.
    - Touche 7y ago
      This is not on by default.
      - bzbarsky 7y ago
        Yes, I am aware. But that's related to how happy Google is with it, not to whether it's standardized in any way.
  - skymt 7y ago
    Animation isn't the point of the portal element, it's to allow cross-site navigation to an embedded page without reloading.
amiga-workbench 7y ago
IE5 has proprietary page transition animations, works pretty nicely actually. https://people.apache.org/~jim/NewArchitect/webrevu/1998/12_11/webauthors/12_11_98_4.html https://people.apache.org/~jim/NewArchitect/webrevu/1998/12_...
andrekandre 7y ago
when you are google, unilaterally releasing and pushing a major new feature for “the web” has an entirely different meaning and implication to it compared to, sadly, mozilla, or some other player (even apple to some extent) because of their huge market/mind share. in that scenario “wouldn’t it be cool” is not a good enough reason, and for a major feature such as this, skepticism is healthy and warranted... the “web browser” is slowly being transformed into “the google browser” and we have no one to blame but ourselves
- Touche 7y ago
  The consensus opinion seems to be, from this thread and elsewhere, "While Google is not doing anything wrong by standards in this case, because they have the power/potential to do something wrong by standards we must oppose this as well."