Of course. It's just a coincidence that they're placing onerous restrictions on competi- I mean alternative browser engines. Restrictions which, of course, they're not obliged to follow themselves.
I am sure that Apple will make no other efforts to impede others from unwalling the garden. That would be completely ridiculous, and frankly, un-Apple-esque.
Both Chrome and Firefox are already compliant, so I don't see it as onerous, but the full context of the list is indeed an extremely loud and clear "FUCK YOU, WE OWN YOU" to regulators and other browser vendors.
> 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;
There is absolutely zero way to satisfy the latter part here. It's at best non-enforceable. If I'm using C++ and use std::span instead of a c-style array, is that good enough?
You have to request explicit permission to be able to be a browser on iOS. You can’t just ship an app. I assume part of that process is that you specifically demonstrate that you try your best to use best safety practices.
Again, it’s also not absolute safety. It’s just due diligence review.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant the WebKit guidelines were from the commenter, not from the apple page.
> 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;
This can't be analyzed in any real way, so its just another way that Apple will restrict web engines and claim it was due to "not enough use of memory safety language features"
Why does it matter if Apple themselves don’t link the WebKit docs? It’s literally their project and seems to meet their requirements.
There’s a lot of things in the requirements like funding that Apple cannot verify. I think you’re being too binary in this.
Some of it is very clearly intended to be a “show us you are at least considering these security measures and have practices in place to minimize known issues”. Again, for the third time, it’s clearly NOT a list for ongoing perfect security, given that there are other items on the list that deal with further mitigation strategies.
What is the exception? I’m saying they meet the same requirements they are asking for other browsers.
This is literally the question I started this thread with and you have gone in to a loop of saying “they can’t enforce this” without any response of substance.
Your "substance" is "trust Apple will enforce something correctly where there isn't a correct answer". I don't agree with that. Apple has a history of interpreting things favorably for themselves and locking 3rd parties from doing the same things for wave hands reasons.
If you are going to make guidelines, make them evaluable. These aren't. If you care about memory safety, either say use a memory safe language or point to an exact reference guide to use to allow XYZ language to satisfy it.
Then you’re basically strawmanning here because you’re applying your own interpretation to the rules as written.
If you would pause for a second and actually read the rules in their entirety it is obvious that the lines you’re fixating on aren’t meant to be absolute security measures and therefore don’t need to be continuously evaluated.
Your conjecture about Apple withholding the permissions for arbitrary reasons is not borne out of evidence. When asked REPEATEDLY to show where they’re giving themselves an exception to their own rules, you continuously fail to provide any example and are just hand waiving conjectures.
Maybe they are doing what you’re saying but you’re making an incredibly poor argument regarding it.
