6 ms·
And what are they suggesting to improve the proposal? Apple, which makes $20B a year with Safari, surely has enough resources to make a counter-proposal?
by agust 2y ago
And what are they suggesting to improve the proposal? Apple, which makes $20B a year with Safari, surely has enough resources to make a counter-proposal?
- L3viathan 2y agoThe counter-proposal is: don't do it. This comment by the Apple guy sums it up well IMHO: > Colleagues and I have discussed this and don't see a way to grant write access to the end user's local file system in a way that safeguards the end user's interests.
- agust 2y agoSo they can make it to work for platform-specific apps that they tax 30%, but can't make it to work for interoperable web apps which they can't tax. How convenient.
- madeofpalk 2y agoSafari already supports a permission-less file system API with a very similar security model to iOS's filesystem access. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/File_System_API/Origin_private_file_system https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/File_System... https://webkit.org/blog/12257/the-file-system-access-api-with-origin-private-file-system/ https://webkit.org/blog/12257/the-file-system-access-api-wit... It's able to support this because the 'file system' is scoped specifically to that origin, and doesn't allow access to any aribtary location on the file sytem, just like iOS.
- hu3 2y agoYour parent comment point still valid. If Apple made arbitrary file access work for apps [1], surely they could make it work for Safari. But apps pay 30% and websites don't, so it's easy to conclude why they don't want to. [1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/view_controllers/providing_access_to_directories https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/view_control...