5 ms·

Strictly speaking, Chrome is not ignoring a web standard, since the standard does not require this behavior (no "MUST" keyword).

by ko27 7y ago

obituary_latte 7y ago
Well they are ignoring hundreds if not thousands of developers which is the main issue at this point.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ko27 7y ago
  Well, that's what Chrome always does? Just like the preventDefault breaking change thing. They have no problem ignoring developers if they think it will be a net benefit for user experience.
  - obituary_latte 7y ago
    Yup. Very frustrating as a dev. I don’t really get how they rationalize it either - having their autofill appear over and obstruct a developers autocomplete functionality is not user friendly!
- jrockway 7y ago
  By ignoring "hundreds if not thousands of developers" they are respecting the wishes of millions of end-users that don't want the site owner to decide what they can and can't autofill. Obviously a simple boolean is the wrong design here. But can you suggest a better one?
  - fuzzy2 7y ago
    I don't think "millions of end-users" want broken websites because now another developer (Google) gets to decide what's correct (instead of the web dev). A better solution could be to just behave reasonably by default but allow the user to re-enable auto-fill with a single click.
  - obituary_latte 7y ago
    Surely there’s a way to check if a field has some kind of programatic interaction like typeahead. Maybe check for that before taking over with autofill? I don’t know - maybe that would break spec or something - I’m not a browser developer. I just know the pain of autocomplete=“off” not working as expected.
ss3000 7y ago
Point taken. Maybe in this case the spec authors were also at fault for leaving too much leeway in the implementation. Nevertheless, from their stance on the issue so far it stands to reason that the Chromium team would have objected to any efforts to tighten the spec, which would also have led us to this same situation.
dwb 7y ago
That depends entirely on your interpretation of RFC 2119 in this context – whether you consider Google to have "valid reasons" or not. It's not an objective or inarguable issue.

Strictly speaking, Chrome is not ignoring a web standard, since the standard does not require this behavior (no "MUST" keyword).

by ko27 7y ago

Strictly speaking, Chrome is not ignoring a web standard, since the standard does not require this behavior (no "MUST" keyword).

obituary_latte 7y ago

Well they are ignoring hundreds if not thousands of developers which is the main issue at this point.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ko27 7y ago
Well, that's what Chrome always does? Just like the preventDefault breaking change thing. They have no problem ignoring developers if they think it will be a net benefit for user experience.
- obituary_latte 7y ago
  Yup. Very frustrating as a dev. I don’t really get how they rationalize it either - having their autofill appear over and obstruct a developers autocomplete functionality is not user friendly!
jrockway 7y ago
By ignoring "hundreds if not thousands of developers" they are respecting the wishes of millions of end-users that don't want the site owner to decide what they can and can't autofill. Obviously a simple boolean is the wrong design here. But can you suggest a better one?
- fuzzy2 7y ago
  I don't think "millions of end-users" want broken websites because now another developer (Google) gets to decide what's correct (instead of the web dev). A better solution could be to just behave reasonably by default but allow the user to re-enable auto-fill with a single click.
- obituary_latte 7y ago
  Surely there’s a way to check if a field has some kind of programatic interaction like typeahead. Maybe check for that before taking over with autofill? I don’t know - maybe that would break spec or something - I’m not a browser developer. I just know the pain of autocomplete=“off” not working as expected.

ss3000 7y ago

Point taken. Maybe in this case the spec authors were also at fault for leaving too much leeway in the implementation. Nevertheless, from their stance on the issue so far it stands to reason that the Chromium team would have objected to any efforts to tighten the spec, which would also have led us to this same situation.

dwb 7y ago

That depends entirely on your interpretation of RFC 2119 in this context – whether you consider Google to have "valid reasons" or not. It's not an objective or inarguable issue.