> There’s no reason to specify access to the DOM for webassembly since you can grant that access from JS.
There are reasons. If I could write web apps in a different language without having to use any JS, I would. It would be wonderful to be able to pick whatever language you want, compile it, and then deploy it. Having a JS bridge just seems like a clunky workaround that you have to live with.
> That’s great from a trust perspective because it means you can use a binary blob with confidence that it can’t do anything it isn't explicitly allowed to.
JavaScript is already sandboxed and can access only what you allow it to. Why have a sandbox within a sandbox?
There are reasons. If I could write web apps in a different language without having to use any JS, I would. It would be wonderful to be able to pick whatever language you want, compile it, and then deploy it. Having a JS bridge just seems like a clunky workaround that you have to live with.
> That’s great from a trust perspective because it means you can use a binary blob with confidence that it can’t do anything it isn't explicitly allowed to.
JavaScript is already sandboxed and can access only what you allow it to. Why have a sandbox within a sandbox?