4 ms·

Ah, so now nobody can ever launch any new messaging features without reaching a consensus in a standardization body. Progress!

capableweb 4y ago
Nope, that's not how standardization works. I'd refer you to the process of HTML/CSS/JavaScript if you want to see how it can work in a global manner that also works for innovation too (unless you'd argue that HTML/CSS/JavaScript is exactly the same in terms of "innovation" since they each first were created). In short, the process is something like this: 1) a browser implements a new feature they think is useful 2) standard bodies start watching 3) another browser implements the same feature either the same way, or differently 4) standard bodies start working on a specification to unify the feature across browsers and OSes 5) Specification gets "blessed" and is now official recommendation 6) browsers modify their feature to be compliant with the specification
- d12bb 4y ago
  Yeah, web is the best example… In short, the process is something like this: 1) Chrome implements a new feature they think is useful 2) Google uses their people in the standard committees to push it into the standards 3a) it's actually useful: other Browsers implement it or 3b) it's basically useful to Google: they'll continue blaming other browsers to not implement standards, “This website works only in Chrome” incoming
  - capableweb 4y ago
    You have any evidence of this happening? All cases I can think of for the last 4-5 years, have been Chrome/Firefox implements something -> The other implements it -> Standard pops up What features has Chrome managed to standardize without having another browser implement the same feature?
- dodobirdlord 4y ago
  Step 1 of that process violates the law, if it adds new “core messaging capability”. Perhaps the EU considers “core messaging capability” to refer exclusively to functionality that already exists today, and it could not even in principle refer to anything that doesn’t already exist, but that seems vague and unlikely. If support for Unicode emoji did not already exist, would a vendor be allowed to unilaterally add it? It seems uncertain.
- recursivequine 4y ago
  So now, instead of websites breaking from browser to browser. My messages will fail from each app? Browsers show how global standards fail and the only thing preventing 99.99% market share of chrome is the walled garden that is apple & safari

capableweb 4y ago

Nope, that's not how standardization works. I'd refer you to the process of HTML/CSS/JavaScript if you want to see how it can work in a global manner that also works for innovation too (unless you'd argue that HTML/CSS/JavaScript is exactly the same in terms of "innovation" since they each first were created). In short, the process is something like this: 1) a browser implements a new feature they think is useful 2) standard bodies start watching 3) another browser implements the same feature either the same way, or differently 4) standard bodies start working on a specification to unify the feature across browsers and OSes 5) Specification gets "blessed" and is now official recommendation 6) browsers modify their feature to be compliant with the specification

d12bb 4y ago
Yeah, web is the best example… In short, the process is something like this: 1) Chrome implements a new feature they think is useful 2) Google uses their people in the standard committees to push it into the standards 3a) it's actually useful: other Browsers implement it or 3b) it's basically useful to Google: they'll continue blaming other browsers to not implement standards, “This website works only in Chrome” incoming
- capableweb 4y ago
  You have any evidence of this happening? All cases I can think of for the last 4-5 years, have been Chrome/Firefox implements something -> The other implements it -> Standard pops up What features has Chrome managed to standardize without having another browser implement the same feature?
dodobirdlord 4y ago
Step 1 of that process violates the law, if it adds new “core messaging capability”. Perhaps the EU considers “core messaging capability” to refer exclusively to functionality that already exists today, and it could not even in principle refer to anything that doesn’t already exist, but that seems vague and unlikely. If support for Unicode emoji did not already exist, would a vendor be allowed to unilaterally add it? It seems uncertain.
recursivequine 4y ago
So now, instead of websites breaking from browser to browser. My messages will fail from each app? Browsers show how global standards fail and the only thing preventing 99.99% market share of chrome is the walled garden that is apple & safari