These requirements are things like "Use memory-safe programming languages", "Adopt the latest security mitigations", if you ship your own certificate trust you should "provide information on how a root certificate authority (CA) can apply to become part of the program".
All seems like pretty basic conditions designed to ensure that only Mozilla and Google can comply.
To be honest, the browser engine stuff seems significantly more robust and permissive that I was expecting.
Pretty funny to see "use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages" as a requirement when WebKit itself is built on top of C++ code.
I wonder if Apple would be allowed to ship WebKit if they enforce this requirement under the spirit of the EU laws that made them change their minds.
> Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the Alternative Web Browser Engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content
> Pass a minimum percentage of tests available from industry standard test suites: 90% from Web Platform Tests and 80% from Test262
Why is it any of Apple's business how many test suites a third party browser can pass?
Why can't iPhone users run Links if they want to? Why can't they run a browser without Javascript support? Why can't they try out Ladybird to see how development is progressing?
Like, even from a pure Apple-is-greedy perspective I don't understand the point of this.
These requirements are things like "Use memory-safe programming languages", "Adopt the latest security mitigations", if you ship your own certificate trust you should "provide information on how a root certificate authority (CA) can apply to become part of the program".
All seems like pretty basic conditions designed to ensure that only Mozilla and Google can comply.
To be honest, the browser engine stuff seems significantly more robust and permissive that I was expecting.