
New in Chrome 73 - AliCollins
https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/03/nic73
======
kowdermeister
The DevTools update is amazing:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uddZX9ZK6wY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uddZX9ZK6wY)

Break point like console logging is a neat idea.

~~~
rimliu
Xcode has similar functionality. It is the actual breakpoint, but you can just
log the message (or make the computer to say it) and continue execution.

~~~
masklinn
> Xcode has similar functionality.

And safari's own devtools inherited it years ago.

edit: looked it up, was introduced in Safari 8 (2014):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585122](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585122)

------
nes350
SXG[0] looks promising - allows signing (and subsequently caching externally)
whole HTTP exchanges.

This may be useful for improving security, especially of CDNs. Binary
Transparency seems to be one of the use cases mentioned in the spec[1] -
perhaps someday this would be used for an unified scheme for signing
application packages/updates, without reinventing the wheel every time.

[0]:
[https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/03/nic73#sgx](https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/03/nic73#sgx)

[1]: [https://wicg.github.io/webpackage/draft-yasskin-http-
origin-...](https://wicg.github.io/webpackage/draft-yasskin-http-origin-
signed-responses.html#rfc.appendix.A.4)

~~~
Leace
SXG is primarily designed for AMP so that the browser can display the origin
in the address bar while the content is being served from Google.

Currently only one CA provides paid certificates with a special extension so
that the cert can be used to sign SXG files [0].

[0]: [https://www.digicert.com/account/ietf/http-signed-
exchange.p...](https://www.digicert.com/account/ietf/http-signed-exchange.php)

As for binary transparency it's not enough to stamp the certificate (that's
what CT logs do). The artifact would have to be stamped and published in a
widely accessible source. Actually Binary Transparency doc published by
Mozilla [1] creates a new regular certificate for new published binary thus
utilizing CT infrastructure as it is today.

[1]:
[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Binary_Transparency](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Binary_Transparency)

If we're at Mozilla, it's also interesting to see what's their position on SXG
[2]. There is only one spec there with that status there.

[2]: [https://mozilla.github.io/standards-
positions/](https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/)

~~~
Ajedi32
FWIW, Mozilla's current objections to the standard don't really make sense.
See: [https://github.com/mozilla/standards-
positions/issues/29#iss...](https://github.com/mozilla/standards-
positions/issues/29#issuecomment-459547918)

It seems the real issue at the moment is that it just isn't a high priority
for them.

~~~
Leace
Thanks for the link! Subscribed.

------
reissbaker
This is a huge release. Supporting PWA installation cross-platform provides a
viable alternative to Electron-style bloat for many apps, and shipping SGX is
useful for anyone who dislikes the AMP UX. Kudos to the Chrome team.

~~~
devwastaken
Only for the 'apps' which are just websites but use electron because they want
an installer. If you need native access, pwa is not it and won't be.

~~~
Lord_Zero
PWAs are getting more and more native access every day. File System access is
a planned feature.

~~~
c0l0
Oh $deity. If this is for real, we're all doomed.

~~~
dman
For the category of apps I work on, this will finally make the browser a real
alternative. (I need access to fast local IO).

------
dplesca
Somehow, the update to Chrome 73 managed to ruin Chrome Sync on my work Mac. I
have to "unpause" sync every time I run Chrome and I'm logged out of every
account after closing the app, although I do allow cookies and don't clear
them on close. My passwords don't autofill anymore, either.

What's the point of buying into the whole Chrome Sync thing if it randomly
dies for no apparent reason?

~~~
pibefision
Happened to me too.

~~~
dplesca
It seems to be a wider problem by looking at the messages from
[https://support.google.com/chrome/threads?hl=en&thread_filte...](https://support.google.com/chrome/threads?hl=en&thread_filter=\(category:chrome_sync\))

------
theon144
So, are these "Constructable Stylesheets" a non-standard Chrome-only web
feature that Google designed and implemented, or what's going on here?

~~~
kowdermeister
It is:

[https://wicg.github.io/construct-
stylesheets/](https://wicg.github.io/construct-stylesheets/)

They added two new methods to solve the FOUC (flash of unstyled content)
problem.

It can easily become part of the standard if the feedback is positive.

------
Tepix
Regarding signed exchanges:

"When the browser loads this Signed Exchange, it can safely show your URL in
the address bar because the signature in the exchange indicates the content
originally came from your origin."

\- the original website will not see these requests in its logs. Can visitors
even tell that their browser is not accessing the server that shows up in the
address bar? Their privacy is being violated.

\- when the original website deletes or modifies a resource, the old outdated
version may still be distributed by a 3rd party

~~~
skybrian
Analytics could be done using JavaScript. (Or maybe some other way of
triggering a request?)

Alternately, depending on your perspective, it could improve privacy, by
making it easier to create web apps that don't phone home and disclose your IP
address. Perhaps distributed on a DVD? (I don't know if it supports full
offline access.)

Yes, reading stale content is possible. But this model of distribution is not
new, it's how ordinary software distribution works. It's like downloading
software from a mirror site, but the signature is automatically checked.

Or consider what Cloudflare does and that you need to give them use of your
private key to make it work. It's a trade-off.

------
felix1996
Desktop PWA update looks promising and considering the last update, allowed
many to upload PWAs on Google Play store. I feel the promises are finally
coming true.

~~~
felix1996
Have written down my experience with Desktop PWA update:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19377170](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19377170)

~~~
Rowern
You should probably just say its a tutorial on how to install a PWA (i.e. how
to click on the install button).

------
Gudahtt
This update includes everything in V8 v7.3 as well:
[https://v8.dev/blog/v8-release-73](https://v8.dev/blog/v8-release-73)

------
miller_joe
Is there a list of popular apps that are available as PWAs yet? Or info on
if/when major apps will be available as PWAs (slack, spotify, etc)?

~~~
kop316
Lyft and Uber are PWAs.

------
DanHulton
Has anyone else noticed a reduction in New Tab icons? I used to have 10
defined, but now it will only show 8 of them. OSX 10.14.3, Chrome
73.0.3683.75.

It also seems to sometimes not want to display the text for the New Tab icons
in white and picks a nearly-imperceptible slightly-darker grey.

------
remir
I briefly looked around and it seems like desktop PWA are not yet supported by
Firefox. At least I haven't found a way to add an app to the desktop like we
can do in Chrome. A bit disappointing.

------
mikewhy
On macOS at least, opening a PWA .app also launches Chrome, and quitting
Chrome also quits any PWAs you have open. That's not a stellar experience.

~~~
aasasd
Exactly like it was with Chrome “applications“ four or five years ago.

------
felixfbecker
So Chrome supports dark theme, and PWAs can now be installed, but the PWA
window does not support dark theme. Ironic. Two features developed in
isolation?

~~~
ymolodtsov
What are they supposed to do with them, repaint Twitter and the others?
Especially since these apps basically have zero system elements other than 3
buttons (to clarify I'm talking about MacOS).

~~~
felixfbecker
Make the huge title bar dark, just like in normal Chrome? You can already
select dark theme inside Twitter, but it's irritating with the light title
bar.

With `prefers-color-scheme` soon websites will be able to react to system
theme too.

------
eatbitseveryday
Intel SGX[0] is a specific technology supported by the CPU for encrypting
application memory. Is the acronym used differently in the context with
Chrome?

[0] [https://software.intel.com/en-us/sgx](https://software.intel.com/en-
us/sgx)

~~~
gruez
no, but to be fair it's pretty confusing.

intel sgx: software guard extensions

chrome sgx: Signed HTTP(????) Exchanges

------
ryenus
Finally:

* Dark mode is now supported on Mac, and Windows support is on the way.

~~~
adamlett
I find it a little bit amazing that we now live in time where features in
mainstream applications ship for the Mac before they ship for Windows.

~~~
extra88
You mean like how IE5 for Mac in 2000 had a variety of features IE for Windows
lacked, including much superior CSS support?

~~~
duskwuff
There was so much more than that, too... Mac IE5 had full support for
transparent PNGs, a download manager, an auction manager (!), and a bunch of
different color themes to match Apple's product line. It was easily better
than even MSIE6, and it's a shame that Microsoft essentially abandoned the
product after release, along with the Tasman rendering engine it used.

------
hestefisk
We need to drop Chrome and start using Firefox. I just switched to FF Nightly
and it is really fast with GPU acceleration. Please download today!

~~~
Kurtz79
We don't "need" to do anything.

It's nice to have choiches.

~~~
kome
no, we _need_ it; or we will go back to a fancy version of Internet Explorer 6
(that is, chrome browser): proprietary technology implementation, by a top
player, against any standard... and spying on users (but that's new, I don't
think IE 6 was that vicious).

Web monoculture make the web worse for everybody.

~~~
nolok
It's funny, I see this comparison a lot and the people using it don't see how
it misses the mark: the reason (the majority of tech) people hated SO MUCH on
IE6 was not because it was proprietary, but because it was static and didn't
bring get any advance, thus blocking the web's progress. Chrome doesn't have
that issue, at worst you can claim it gives too much power to Google on
decision about where the web goes, but not that it keeps it from progressing.

It was also not respecting the standards but only after a while (at release it
was at the forefront of it), and that is also not a problem that Chrome can
relate to.

I say that as someone who uses Chrome, enjoy it, but would also prefer if we
didn't go back to a single engine being supported on the web (and I switched
back to firefox on mobile, because of chrome lacks of support for ad blocking
there).

By confusing what the fight is about and trying to make it about what it's
not, I fear you make some people like me ignore it.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
_> It's funny, I see this comparison a lot and the people using it don't see
how it misses the mark ..._

You seem to be missing the link between monopoly and stagnation though. IE
wasn't always stagnant. It brought us XMLHTTPRequest for instance.

I think the debate has to be about whether or not Chromium being open source
changes the equation.

~~~
nolok
IE6 era's Microsoft had an interest in the web stagnating, while Google
doesn't. If anything, they used their position to push forward new things that
others wanted to slow down.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
It appears to me that Google is pushing forward some things while slowing down
others. Obviously, Google will never be at the forefront of limiting what
advertisers can do.

My biggest worry with a Chrome quasi monopoly would be the erosion of browser
making competence and financial resources outside of Google.

So whenever Google's vested interests clash with what users want, there would
be no one left to step up. Chromium would be open source, but only Google
employees would know the source well enough to do anything with it.

It's a worry. I'm not saying it's the same as with a closed source IE back
then.

------
gsich
Have they reverted the horrible UI?

~~~
Bjartr
Could you at least go into a little detail about what you think is horrible
about the ui? That way you're contributing to the discussion.

~~~
gsich
The new design is space wasting. Check the URL bar for example, you type
something and you get suggestions. The distance between each entry is huge. I
don't have a touch interface on my desktop. It should be configurable. It was,
until they removed the flags.

Tabs: with the old edgy style you saw "more" and was easier to click. This
might be a personal choice though.

Account: Previously (on Windows) your Google account was displayed next to the
minimize/maximize/close button. Now it's next to the icons for addons. Wasting
space.

Difference between Linux and Windows: On Linux (Fedora, Ubuntu) you can use
the scrollwheel to cycle through tabs when hovering over them. Doesn't work in
Windows.

------
nukeop
We need less PWAs, not more. Many people are already confused enough when it
comes to grasping the difference between websites and native applications.
Another "standard" created to consolidate Google's position in the market.

~~~
chippy
I'm also confused about how privacy enhancing browser extensions work within a
PWA. I've yet to get a full answer on this (it seems as if no one really
knows) but it seems to me as if a PWA is more friendly to trackers and less
friendly to users of the browser.

~~~
kinlan
I work on the project - PWA's on desktop are essentially just tabs without the
Chrome at the moment, so it all goes through the same plumbing right now. It's
not more or less friendly to trackers, if you have an extension the extension
should still run in the same context.

~~~
WhatIsDukkha
Is that an implementation detail or in the design spec?

