>>> 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;
AFAIK all major engines are written primarily in C++. This "features that improve memory safety" is worryingly vague, and we already know Apple goes out of it's way to make these rulings less useful.
I wouldn't be surprised if they rejected both Firefox and Chrome on these grounds.
did the judge say it had to be written in a memory safe language? Honest question. Otherwise, this seems just like they're looking for a loophole knowing neither their browser nor chrome or Firefox are written in completely memory safe languages. Seems like grounds for a big fine.
>> You must do the following:
>>> 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;
AFAIK all major engines are written primarily in C++. This "features that improve memory safety" is worryingly vague, and we already know Apple goes out of it's way to make these rulings less useful.
I wouldn't be surprised if they rejected both Firefox and Chrome on these grounds.