3 ms·

Why this takes so long is because once such a standard is introduced, you can't take that decision back anymore without breaking a lot of things. They don't wan

by Sylos 10y ago

Why this takes so long is because once such a standard is introduced, you can't take that decision back anymore without breaking a lot of things. They don't want to introduce standards which end up being used only by a small number of people while causing a lot of maintenance-work and then being tied to maintaining it anyways. That also is the reason why these decisions often happen in the same time frame for different browser vendors. If another browser vendors decides to introduce it, you can be much more sure that you won't be supporting it without anyone using it. And obviously also just to not be left behind by web developers.

niftich 10y ago
Maybe so. The counterpoint is that several of APIs added to the web platform in the last ~8 years have already been deprecated: stuff like WebSQL, File System, AppCache; there is no shortage of moving fast and breaking things when it comes to browser vendors. Something like a codec is comparatively trivial, because as a content server you can never rely on everyone supporting the same codec, so you have to stream among multiple formats anyway. When all of these JS APIs that FF or Chrome added were later deprecated and removed, everyone had to re-code their sites. So I'm hesitant to accept 'let's be really careful about this' as a rationale here.
- mschuster91 10y ago
  > The counterpoint is that several of APIs added to the web platform in the last ~8 years have already been deprecated: stuff like WebSQL, File System, AppCache And two of these have been replaced by complex, over engineered stuff. WebSQL was replaced by IndexedDB which can't do a simple equivalent of SELECT ... ORDER BY ... GROUP BY... without ending in callback hell, and AppCache was replaced by ServiceWorkers.
stesch 10y ago
I've seen more animated PNG than FLAC files. Animated PNG got removed from Firefox.
- swift 10y ago
  You're thinking of "MNG", which is a different PNG-related animation format than the simpler "animated PNG". MNG was removed, but animated PNG is still supported in Firefox and indeed is used in its UI.
  - stesch 10y ago
    I stand corrected.
- mintplant 10y ago
  No it didn't.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

by Sylos 10y ago

niftich 10y ago

Maybe so. The counterpoint is that several of APIs added to the web platform in the last ~8 years have already been deprecated: stuff like WebSQL, File System, AppCache; there is no shortage of moving fast and breaking things when it comes to browser vendors. Something like a codec is comparatively trivial, because as a content server you can never rely on everyone supporting the same codec, so you have to stream among multiple formats anyway. When all of these JS APIs that FF or Chrome added were later deprecated and removed, everyone had to re-code their sites. So I'm hesitant to accept 'let's be really careful about this' as a rationale here.

mschuster91 10y ago
> The counterpoint is that several of APIs added to the web platform in the last ~8 years have already been deprecated: stuff like WebSQL, File System, AppCache And two of these have been replaced by complex, over engineered stuff. WebSQL was replaced by IndexedDB which can't do a simple equivalent of SELECT ... ORDER BY ... GROUP BY... without ending in callback hell, and AppCache was replaced by ServiceWorkers.

stesch 10y ago

I've seen more animated PNG than FLAC files. Animated PNG got removed from Firefox.

swift 10y ago
You're thinking of "MNG", which is a different PNG-related animation format than the simpler "animated PNG". MNG was removed, but animated PNG is still supported in Firefox and indeed is used in its UI.
- stesch 10y ago
  I stand corrected.
mintplant 10y ago
No it didn't.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]