3 ms·

About chromium on cross origin remove of alert and co.(link in article): "We haven’t engaged with other browser vendors regarding this change yet, but plan to

About chromium on cross origin remove of alert and co.(link in article): "We haven’t engaged with other browser vendors regarding this change yet, but plan to submit a spec change proposal once the change is approved for Chrome." So chrome just changes it. And then officially applys for the spec change, so other browsers might follow - or not. I mean, why pretending at all, that you care about the spec, when you are fat monopolist?

zamadatix 5y ago
Eh, I don't like how much influence Chrom(e|ium) has but this is either missing information or intentionally misleading to paint a picture. This is how the spec process works: 1. You find out if you want to implement something 2. You find out if others want to implement something 3. You implement your something (for simple things in a testbed for complex things as an experimental change over multiple development versions) 4. You demonstrate the something works 5. You demonstrate others are intending to ship as well (For complex things you may have to wait until others are comfortable with their working implementations) 6. If you had a bad experience and many discussion points in 4/5 you go back to 4 and refine until you had a good experience and your spec is merged. You imply the Chromium authors went 1, 3, ship because you read about step 1 happening. In reality they consulted with Firefox and Safari prior to merging code into the codebase or simply lobbing a spec proposal over the fence. https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/6297 https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/6297
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  Ok, all I know is, that the site in question, Canistilluse.com, has as the main information, that in the next version of chrome 95, "alert" can not be considered, as working as expected by the standard. For me, that comes a bit out of the blue - and seems to be a "making facts" attitude by chrome, not discussing things.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    That colored squares from canistilluse.com are not not "all you know" considering your original quote was pulled from the same page I pulled the above Firefox/Safari signals+timeline and spec PR link from: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/hTOXiBj3D6A/m/1Q0TjPwWAwAJ https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/hTOXi... Also canistilluse makes no claim about whether the deprecation matches standards or not. For reference the standards change was actually approved back in February, per the link in my above comment, so it is actually according to standards.
Ashanmaril 5y ago
Does "approved for chrome" mean it's going to be implemented, or just that there's enough people in favor on the Chrome side that they think it's worth submitting for standardization approval?

zamadatix 5y ago

Eh, I don't like how much influence Chrom(e|ium) has but this is either missing information or intentionally misleading to paint a picture. This is how the spec process works: 1. You find out if you want to implement something 2. You find out if others want to implement something 3. You implement your something (for simple things in a testbed for complex things as an experimental change over multiple development versions) 4. You demonstrate the something works 5. You demonstrate others are intending to ship as well (For complex things you may have to wait until others are comfortable with their working implementations) 6. If you had a bad experience and many discussion points in 4/5 you go back to 4 and refine until you had a good experience and your spec is merged. You imply the Chromium authors went 1, 3, ship because you read about step 1 happening. In reality they consulted with Firefox and Safari prior to merging code into the codebase or simply lobbing a spec proposal over the fence. https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/6297 https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/6297

hutzlibu 5y ago
Ok, all I know is, that the site in question, Canistilluse.com, has as the main information, that in the next version of chrome 95, "alert" can not be considered, as working as expected by the standard. For me, that comes a bit out of the blue - and seems to be a "making facts" attitude by chrome, not discussing things.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  That colored squares from canistilluse.com are not not "all you know" considering your original quote was pulled from the same page I pulled the above Firefox/Safari signals+timeline and spec PR link from: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/hTOXiBj3D6A/m/1Q0TjPwWAwAJ https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/hTOXi... Also canistilluse makes no claim about whether the deprecation matches standards or not. For reference the standards change was actually approved back in February, per the link in my above comment, so it is actually according to standards.

Ashanmaril 5y ago

Does "approved for chrome" mean it's going to be implemented, or just that there's enough people in favor on the Chrome side that they think it's worth submitting for standardization approval?