by JimDabell | 2025-12-24 16:31:15+00:00
> Jim once again you are jumping in to defend Apple no matter what the topic is. It’s a really strange behaviour yet again.

Is it possible for you to respond to me without personal attacks? This is the second time this week you have decided it’s appropriate to call me weird.

I have not misread anything. Web USB and Web Bluetooth are not web standards.

> This specification was published by the Web Bluetooth Community Group. It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track.

— https://webbluetoothcg.github.io/web-bluetooth/

> This specification was published by the Web Platform Incubator Community Group. It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track.

— https://wicg.github.io/webusb/

The specifications literally tell you they aren’t standards.

They have been rejected by both Mozilla and WebKit:

> This API provides access to the Generic Attribute Profile (GATT) of Bluetooth, which is not the lowest level of access that the specifications allow, but its generic nature makes it impossible to clearly evaluate. Like WebUSB there is significant uncertainty regarding how well prepared devices are to receive requests from arbitrary sites. The generic nature of the API means that this risk is difficult to manage. The Web Bluetooth CG has opted to only rely on user consent, which we believe is not sufficient protection. This proposal also uses a blocklist, which will require constant and active maintenance so that vulnerable devices aren't exploited. This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices.

— https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth

> The low-level nature of this API means that it is insecure, has a massive privacy risk, and perhaps most importantly doesn't meet the web platform's device-independence bar.

— https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/570#iss...

> Because many USB devices are not designed to handle potentially-malicious interactions over the USB protocols and because those devices can have significant effects on the computer they're connected to, we believe that the security risks of exposing USB devices to the Web are too broad to risk exposing users to them or to explain properly to end users to obtain meaningful informed consent. It also poses risks that sites could use USB device identity or data stored on USB devices as tracking identifiers.

— https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webusb

> We have previously stated privacy concerns, thus the concerns: privacy label. We agree with Mozilla's security concerns raised in their standards position issue, thus the concerns: security label. This spec also depends on a specific hardware technology, and enables dependency on specific attached hardware accessories, which risks the device independence of the web; thus concerns: device-independence.

— https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/68#issu...

Something isn’t a web standard just because Google decided to publish a specification. No other rendering engine has accepted these specifications.

> I don’t know why you keep glossing over this no matter how many times it has been politely pointed out to you.

I don’t believe anybody has ever said this to me before, let alone repeatedly, let alone politely, but perhaps I am forgetting. Could you refresh my memory? When did this happen?