HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
extensibleweb
manifesto
Web Development2013–2025
extensibleweb / manifesto

manifesto

The Extensible Web Manifesto

Web Development
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
10Distinct people
19Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
335GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

The Extensible Web Manifesto

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 12:45:45 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year19 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2013-06-10 23:19:11 UTC to 2025-09-15 21:03:13 UTC.

01232013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments20132014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments20192020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2025

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20132013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

2 sources
rektide·Aug 4, 2022
But your services have to support the Connect protocol. You can also ship services that support gRPC-Web directly too & run without a proxy. This is definitely a step up, nicely convenient. But also, it has downsides too. gRPC is incredibly well supported by a huge number of observability tools and service-layers/service-mesh systems. Few have support for gRPC-Web. Which if any have support for Connect-Web? In general, it's just massively sad that the browser never got around to making HTTP Push useful for protocols. gRPC should have been positioned to do great things, was a very common-sense overlay atop HTTP2 that provided just a little more semantics to say how things ought work. It triangulated nicely on where we were going, at it's inception, back in 2014/2015. But the browser basically never evolved, never gave developers access to
Read the rest
do the good stuff we thought we'd start to have access to. I still see brand new specs that shout out to the Low Level Extensibility Manifesto[1], but for some reason, in terms of the most base layer of the web, HTTP, this simple guidance has been roundly ignored & the capabilities were never delivered. So gRPC has been stuck with a pretty ok protocol, & frustratingly discompatible browser. [1] https://github.com/extensibleweb/manifesto
In Connect-Web: TypeScript library for calling RPC servers from web browsers
rektide·Jun 6, 2022
> I just wish WebRTC wasn't so prescriptive of DTLS/SRTP. There was a webrtc-webtransport spec, but it got renamed/retasked to p2p-webtransport[1]. It got renamed/rebuild ~1 year ago[2]. Feels like a pretty strong indicator of webrtc being deconstructed, but whose to say this goes anywhere. We'd also need webcodecs. It's somewhat scary & also somewhat exciting thinking of the one good, working, browser supported standard being ripped into pieces (p2p-webtransport, webcodecs, more) & being user-implemented. Having the browser & servers have a well-known target is both great but also perhaps confining. If we leave it up to each site/library to DIY their solution, figure out how to balance the p2p feeds, it'll be a long long time before the Rest of the World (other than the very big few) have reasonable tech again. WebRTC is quite capable &
Read the rest
a nice even playing field, with lots of well-known rules to enable creative interopation. We'd be throwing away a lot. I'd hoped for webrtc-webtransport, to at least keep some order & regularity, but that seems out, at the moment. But Webrtc-nv is still ultra-formative; anything could happen. The rest of the transport stack is also undergoing massive seismic shifts. I feel like we're in for a lot of years of running QUIC or HTTP3 over WebRTC Data-Channels and over WebTransport, so we can explore solutions the new capabilities while not having to ram each & every change through with the browser implementers. It feels like a less visible but far more massive Web Extensibility Manifesto moment ("Browser vendors should provide new low-level capabilities that expose the possibilities of the underlying platform as closely as possible."), only at sub-HTML levels[3]. The browsers refused to let us play with HTTP Push, never let appdevs know realtime resources had been pushed at the browser, so we're still debating terrible WebSocket vs SSE choices; terrible. I think of gRPC-web & what an abomination that is, how sad & pointless that effort is; all because the browser is a mere glimmer of the underlying transport. I feel like a lot of experimentation & exploration is going to happen if we start exploring QUIC or HTTP3 over WebTransport. Attempts to reimagine alternatives to WebRTC are also possible if we had specs like p2p-webtransport, or just did QUIC over DataChannels. Running modern protocols in the client, not the browser, seems like a semi-cursed future, but necessary, at least for a while, while we don't yet know what we could do. The browsers are super laggy, slow to expose capabilities. [1] https://github.com/w3c/p2p-webtransport [2] https://github.com/w3c/p2p-webtransport/commit/63370be4bb61a... [3] https://github.com/extensibleweb/manifesto
In Video Live Streaming: Notes on RTMP, HLS, and WebRTC

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.