WebKit Quirks.cpp

>>Bodaci+(OP)
This bit was interesting.

  bool Quirks::requiresUserGestureToPauseInPictureInPicture() const
  {
  #if ENABLE(VIDEO_PRESENTATION_MODE)
      // Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit will naively pause a <video> element that has scrolled out of the viewport,
      // regardless of whether that element is currently in PiP mode.
      // We should remove the quirk once <rdar://problem/67273166>, <rdar://problem/73369869>, and <rdar://problem/80645747> have been fixed.
      if (!needsQuirks())
          return false;

      if (!m_requiresUserGestureToPauseInPictureInPicture) {
          auto domain = RegistrableDomain(m_document->topDocument().url()).string();
          m_requiresUserGestureToPauseInPictureInPicture = domain == "facebook.com"_s || domain == "twitter.com"_s || domain == "reddit.com"_s;
      }
  
      return *m_requiresUserGestureToPauseInPictureInPicture;
  #else
      return false;
  #endif
  }

>>babelf+e8
The first rule of browser development is "forget the standard, forget consistency... If it's popular and works in other browsers but not yours, your browser is broken."

>>shadow+hk
Might as well create site-specific browsers.

>>matheu+Oz
It’s getting closer to the point where we call the entire current “web” a Google-specific network, Google Chrome is renamed a “Google” browser instead of a web browser, and we re-make a new interlinked network which does not require one specific company’s product to use. (Never mind an advertisement company.)

The “Google” network and sites can be kept on as a necessary evil proprietary service, like Facebook is for many, and also LinkedIn.

>>teddyh+ZO
That sounds like requesting an awful lot of volunteer labor from web developers who don't want to do that.

Web developers, ultimately, have very little vested interest in what browser is winning or who's using what as long as (a) people can access their site and (b) they don't have to write the site twice. That's their incentive model. Telling them that the spec is X and if Google does Y Google is wrong when Google is like 90% market share is just kind of a funny idea for them to laugh at and then go right back to solving the problem in a way that reaches 90% of the possible users (and then maybe, time permitting, writing pieces of the site twice to pick up a fraction of the remaining 10%).

>>shadow+vP
> Web developers, ultimately, have very little vested interest

Yeah, of course. It's only the platform they depend on. Why not cede control of it to Google, right? What's the worst that could happen?

Sometimes I ask myself why people even try. What is the point when people have such an apathetic attitude? What is the point of these web standards? Some huge company comes in, dominates the market and suddenly they're the standard. Nobody cares as long as they're making money, even though the huge company is usurping control of the platform. Not even a year ago I saw a post here about people at Google talking about moving the web away from the previous "owned" model to a "managed" model or something like that. As long as people don't have to work too hard to get paid, who cares, right? This notion of an open platform is just a funny idea to laugh at.

zlacker