[troupo]

> First of all, features can be a standard without (full) FF and/or Safari support.

No. No they can't. A feature that is shipped in a single browser is just that: that browser's non-interoperable feature.

We literally lived through this with Internet Explorer.

The only reason the web is thriving now is because browser vendors agreed not to push this shit any longer. Well, until Google decided that whatever it does is the web, and until people who are not even paid by Google started unironically pushing the idea of "whatever Google spits out is the essential web standard now".

I mean, the status of multiple APIs on any of those "Safari is bad PWA is good" sites are literally in the "it's a napkin scribble, not on any standards track".

> They're holding the standards hostage by not allowing the market to decide which features are important to them (and put pressure on Safari and FF to implement them)

Who puts the pressure on FF to not implement Chrome-only non-standard APIs? Even desktop Firefox doesn't want to touch that pile of garbage with a 10-yard stick. And yeah, let's not pretend that Chrome somehow got to where it is by "market deciding".

[rejhgadellaa]

> A feature that is shipped in a single browser is just that: that browser's non-interoperable feature.

AFAIK, the popover and/or anchor positioning APIs was standards before it shipped in more than one browser. (I will say that all three(?) of them agreed to build it)

> "it's a napkin scribble, not on any standards track".

Chromium/Blink have a process, and it's quite rigorous (precisely because they understand that they're pushing things, so they have a responsibility to make sure it's good):

https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/

[troupo]

> I will say that all three(?) of them agreed to build it

This is the key sentence

> Chromium/Blink have a process, and it's quite rigorous

It's Chrome's process, and Chrome's deadlines.

> they have a responsibility to make sure it's good)

Strange then that they routinely don't wait for and ignore any and all input from other browser vendors and ship their own APIs without any consensus or agreement because "their rigorous process is good" or something.

E.g. almost every single API marked as "experimental" on MDN docs [1] is already shipped in Chrome despite most specs being "not on any standards track", "has multiple issues", "no consensus and API is in flux" or "it is provided for discussion only and may change at any moment."

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API

[rejhgadellaa]

> Strange then that they routinely don't wait for and ignore any and all input from other browser vendors

It's not strange when you consider that other browser vendors sometimes flat out refuse or delay. The only option, then, is to just go ahead, spec, build and launch it, and let the market decide whether to push those vendors to reconsider.

"The Power of 'No' in Internet Standards"

https://www.mnot.net/blog/2026/02/13/no

"How Do Committees Fail To Invent?"

https://infrequently.org/2025/08/how-do-committees-fail-to-i...