4 ms·

> That’s the worst possible way to define a standard. I think browser vendors would agree, except that none of the other/normal ways to define a standard are p

> That’s the worst possible way to define a standard. I think browser vendors would agree, except that none of the other/normal ways to define a standard are practically available to them. Browser vendors have settled on this silly sounding approach because web developers have come to rely on literally whatever the browsers actually do. Many browser bugs can no longer be fixed because too many web developers have come to rely on them. At that point, all you can do is publicly document that this happened and try to move on from there.

kuschku 10y ago
Well, there’s another solution. You write a standard, and get everyone to agree on it, before implementing it. But that waterfall concept is considered bad taste in the web world, and so we get websites only running in Chrome because they require a specific non-standard implementation of an experimental feature that will only be standardized in a few months (See: WhatsApp Web when it launched, Google Inbox when it launched). > Many browser bugs can no longer be fixed because too many web developers have come to rely on them. As said in a sibling comment, Google Chrome has broken lots of existing websites nonetheless. So why can’t they do these breaking changes, too?
- dfabulich 10y ago
  > waterfall concept is considered bad taste in the web world Typically the result is a terrible feature like AppCache. Today, I think origin trials are the best alternative to waterfall. https://github.com/jpchase/OriginTrials https://github.com/jpchase/OriginTrials It allows browsers to experiment with features, even breaking them and deleting them, while working with real web developers and users on actual web sites. > So why can’t they do these breaking changes, too? When browser vendors break web sites, their users complain and switch browsers to another vendor that "works."
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "You write a standard, and get everyone to agree on it, before implementing it." There is a reason things like IETF require "rough consensus and running code" - because doing the way you suggests sounds really wonderful, but is pretty much is guaranteed 100% to not work in practice. It is hard to find good examples where it led to either good standards, or compatible implementations. Design by committee is what brought us POSIX, etc. This has worked out .... so well in practice.
  - gpderetta 10y ago
    Uh, POSIX is generally considered a decent standard and has had great success, especially when compare to what it replaced.

kuschku 10y ago

Well, there’s another solution. You write a standard, and get everyone to agree on it, before implementing it. But that waterfall concept is considered bad taste in the web world, and so we get websites only running in Chrome because they require a specific non-standard implementation of an experimental feature that will only be standardized in a few months (See: WhatsApp Web when it launched, Google Inbox when it launched). > Many browser bugs can no longer be fixed because too many web developers have come to rely on them. As said in a sibling comment, Google Chrome has broken lots of existing websites nonetheless. So why can’t they do these breaking changes, too?

dfabulich 10y ago
> waterfall concept is considered bad taste in the web world Typically the result is a terrible feature like AppCache. Today, I think origin trials are the best alternative to waterfall. https://github.com/jpchase/OriginTrials https://github.com/jpchase/OriginTrials It allows browsers to experiment with features, even breaking them and deleting them, while working with real web developers and users on actual web sites. > So why can’t they do these breaking changes, too? When browser vendors break web sites, their users complain and switch browsers to another vendor that "works."
DannyBee 10y ago
"You write a standard, and get everyone to agree on it, before implementing it." There is a reason things like IETF require "rough consensus and running code" - because doing the way you suggests sounds really wonderful, but is pretty much is guaranteed 100% to not work in practice. It is hard to find good examples where it led to either good standards, or compatible implementations. Design by committee is what brought us POSIX, etc. This has worked out .... so well in practice.
- gpderetta 10y ago
  Uh, POSIX is generally considered a decent standard and has had great success, especially when compare to what it replaced.