[callahad]

> Make sure to let all the Opera devs working on web standards know this.

I don't mean to denigrate their work, nor have I forgotten Opera's role in the fight for web standards, but in the case of Blink, their contributions pale in comparison to Google's. Check the graph at http://browserg.nom.es/#commitsByOrganization, and note that the vertical axis is not linear.

Opera's commit volume to Blink is 7% of Google's. Hell, Samsung is landing nearly twice as many commits.

An implementation monoculture is bad for openness and interoperability. We've been there once with Microsoft, and we legitimately risk going there again with Google. See, for instance, Google unilaterally shipping Shadow DOM, on by default, before standardization. "Chrome will be shipping Shadow DOM publicly. [...] If you want to suggest name changes, as we brainstormed a bit at the f2f, do so RIGHT NOW or forever hold your peace." http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0103.h... (HN discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7184912)

I don't want a web where any vendor has that much weight to throw around.

[rblatz]

You purposely cut out that they are shipping shadow dom in conjunction with Mozilla. That was literally the next statement where you cut your quote. And if you continue to read the conversation this was all talked about and is basically a draft spec, they just haven't finished writing it up, but all the talking and consensus building was done and documented in the f2f minutes.

[bzbarsky]

> that they are shipping shadow dom in conjunction with Mozilla

With my Mozilla developer hat on, that happens not to be the case. Which you would have known had you either read the entire linked-to thread, or even just read the mail that was linked to, which points that out explicitly in the "notwithstanding your apparently inaccurate statement about Mozilla" bit.

> That was literally the next statement where you cut your quote.

It was also a misrepresentation of what's actually going on. Quite common out of Google these days, unfortunately; we've had to call them on it publicly a number of times. Not that this is stopping them from continuing to claim that others are OK with something they're doing when that happens to not be true.

> but all the talking and consensus building was done

The only thing discussed at the CSS working group f2f was the cat and hat combinators, not the entire shadow DOM spec. And even for those, serious issues were raised later by people who were not present at the f2f.

For shadow DOM as a whole, there is no consensus at all. Mozilla is not really on board with the spec in its current form (and we've said so repeatedly and publicly, though we do at least have a plan for how to get the spec to something that we'll be OK shipping... which won't match what Google is shipping). Apple is very definitely not on board at all with the spec in its current form, and Google is not even trying to get them on board. Microsoft has basically said nothing apart from having concerns.

In addition to that, the spec doesn't match Google's implementation at all, in all sorts of ways that are obvious if you actually stop to read what the spec says.

Basically, Google implemented and shipped whatever they felt like and made a sort of attempt at specifying something or other which totally doesn't match what they shipped. And other UA vendors at best (Mozilla) plan to ship something somewhat different from what Google has shipped and at worst (Apple) think the whole thing needs to go back to the drawing board because it's just broken by design.

If you don't think that's unilaterally shipping before standardization, I'm not sure what you think it is, exactly.

[woah]

Been waiting for shadow Dom for years now.