Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jfindper 201 days ago
Indeed, you're making my point.

SquareWheel implied that Mozilla doesn't count as an "other party" because they are aligned with Google on this specific topic.

My comment was pointing out that just because they are aligned on this doesn't mean they are aligned on everything, so Mozilla is an "other party".

And, as you have reinforced, Google and Mozilla are not always in alignment.
1 comments
SquareWheel 201 days ago
I made no such implication. Mozilla is certainly an other party, and their positions on standards hold water. They successfully argued for Web Assembly over Native Client, and have blocked other proposals such as HTML Import in the Web Components API. They are still a key member of the WHATWG.

The fact that Mozilla aligns with Google on both of these deprecations suggests the reasons are valid.

I personally see no reason for XSLT today. Outside of the novelty of theming RSS feeds, it sees very little use. And JPEG XL carries a large security surface area which neither company was comfortable including in its current shape. That may change based on adoption and availability of memory-safe decoders.

link
jfindper 201 days ago
>>"[...] support the web standards as determined by other parties."

>"Which other parties? Because Mozilla's stance on JPEG XL and XSLT are identical to Google's"

If this isn't an implication that Mozilla isn't an other party, than I'm not sure what you were trying to say with "Which other parties?".

Whatever you meant to say, it read as an implication that Mozilla just does what Google does so Mozilla isn't really an "other party".

link
SquareWheel 200 days ago
It means exactly what it says: "What other parties do you mean?". Key players are already in lockstep on this decision, so insisting that Google must submit to the other WHATWG members doesn't make any sense in an argument for restoring XSLT or JPEG XL.

You seem to be reading subtext into a statement that was put plainly.

link
jfindper 200 days ago
>Google must submit to the other WHATWG members doesn't make any sense in an argument for restoring XSLT or JPEG XL.

The comment you replied to was speaking generally, not specifically to XSLT or JPEG XL. They obviously didn't say "Google should be barred from having standards positions" just in context of XSLT/JPEG XL, but they're totally cool with the Google monopoly with every other standard.

>You seem to be reading subtext into a statement that was put plainly.

Nah, I'm really not.

But I'm just farming downvotes, apparently, so nevermind. You win! yay

(It's fun that people are coming to a conversation over 24 hours old, however many levels deep, to downvote!)

link