[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...