Comment by bangaladore
8 days ago
> It’s literally their project and seems to meet their requirements.
This is meaningless. Apple can carve out special exceptions for themselves all day long.
8 days ago
> It’s literally their project and seems to meet their requirements.
This is meaningless. Apple can carve out special exceptions for themselves all day long.
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.