|
|
|
|
|
|
by troupo
82 days ago
|
|
|
> 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 |
|
|
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...