5 ms·

at least there is a well established process of standardization on the web.. (however slow it is).

pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
0. Get a feature into Chromium 1. Encourage webshi^H^H^H developers to use it 2. Insist the feature cannot be removed because Don't Break The Web™ 3. Get someone to type up something that describes the Chromium implementation into the standard 4. It's standard now!
- pwdisswordfish0 4y ago
  This is not really true. Chrome's extensions to the Web platform comprising its Page Lifecycle APIs are coherent, well-reasoned, and valuable/inoffensive, yet other browsers have not implemented them (yet; but the proposed APIs are old enough now that if what you're saying were true it'd already be a done deal).
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > This is not really true. This is 100% true. The latest example is WebTransport. Which isn't even on the standards track. Yet Chrome already released it, and calls it "an emergent standard". And this goes for multiple other Chrome-only non-standards. Good thing you found an API that you decided was reasonable. Doesn't make it a standard, or that there's a consensus, or that other browsers agree with your assessment. Age of the proposal doesn't factor into it.
    - pwdisswordfish0 4y ago
      Sorry, try again. That's not how proof-by-contradiction works. > This is 100% true. It literally is not, unless you think 100% means "less than 100%".
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        The way Chrome works especially in the past many years is 100% correctly described by the comment you were replying to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33989349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33989349 You "counterpoint" isn't even a counterpoint, but just reinforces the original comment. It literally says in the actual document about Page Lifecycle API: "It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track." https://wicg.github.io/page-lifecycle/spec.html https://wicg.github.io/page-lifecycle/spec.html Literally not a standard shipped in Chrome, literally is something Chrome came up with and implemented on its own, literally only shipped in Chrome without any consensus or input from other browser implementers... And yet "no, this isn't true, this isn't how Chrome works at all". Is this true for 100% of things that Chrome is shipping? No. But it's so asymptotically close that the difference doesn't matter. They ship 40 to 70 new web APIs in each version. That is, 40 to 70 new Web APIs every month. Over 500 new APIs a year. How many do you imagine they even pretend to be a standard? https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence
        pwdisswordfish0 4y ago
        > You "counterpoint" isn't even a counterpoint, but just reinforces the original comment. This sleight of hand is not going to work. > Literally not a standard shipped in Chrome, literally is something Chrome came up with and implemented on its own, literally only shipped in Chrome without any consensus or input from other browser implementers ... and literally hasn't gotten "someone to type up something that describes the Chromium implementation into the standard". Your choice to ignore this does not bode well for whether you should be taken seriously on matters of intellectual honesty. The fact that other browser vendors have not been forced to implement it by now contradicts what you are arguing to be true. All of the Chrome-proprietary APIs that shipped once upon a time in Chrome but were later removed from Chrome (incl. no remaining signs in subsequent draft standards) also contradicts it. Does Chrome ship non-standard stuff? Yes. So has Gecko. Webkit, too. Has Mozilla in particular been forced to implement some things for no reason other than it because became unavoidable at some point after it started shipping in Chrome? Yes. Does the standardization process merely consist of Chrome doing whatever it wants and the eventual result is a new standard (with nobody else being able to influence this or contribute anything of their own)? No. > And yet "no, this isn't true, this isn't how Chrome works at all". Nice strawman. The moment where you resort to putting words in someone else's mouth is the moment you forfeit. Goodbye.

0. Get a feature into Chromium 1. Encourage webshi^H^H^H developers to use it 2. Insist the feature cannot be removed because Don't Break The Web™ 3. Get someone to type up something that describes the Chromium implementation into the standard 4. It's standard now!

pwdisswordfish0 4y ago
This is not really true. Chrome's extensions to the Web platform comprising its Page Lifecycle APIs are coherent, well-reasoned, and valuable/inoffensive, yet other browsers have not implemented them (yet; but the proposed APIs are old enough now that if what you're saying were true it'd already be a done deal).
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > This is not really true. This is 100% true. The latest example is WebTransport. Which isn't even on the standards track. Yet Chrome already released it, and calls it "an emergent standard". And this goes for multiple other Chrome-only non-standards. Good thing you found an API that you decided was reasonable. Doesn't make it a standard, or that there's a consensus, or that other browsers agree with your assessment. Age of the proposal doesn't factor into it.
  - pwdisswordfish0 4y ago
    Sorry, try again. That's not how proof-by-contradiction works. > This is 100% true. It literally is not, unless you think 100% means "less than 100%".
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      The way Chrome works especially in the past many years is 100% correctly described by the comment you were replying to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33989349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33989349 You "counterpoint" isn't even a counterpoint, but just reinforces the original comment. It literally says in the actual document about Page Lifecycle API: "It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track." https://wicg.github.io/page-lifecycle/spec.html https://wicg.github.io/page-lifecycle/spec.html Literally not a standard shipped in Chrome, literally is something Chrome came up with and implemented on its own, literally only shipped in Chrome without any consensus or input from other browser implementers... And yet "no, this isn't true, this isn't how Chrome works at all". Is this true for 100% of things that Chrome is shipping? No. But it's so asymptotically close that the difference doesn't matter. They ship 40 to 70 new web APIs in each version. That is, 40 to 70 new Web APIs every month. Over 500 new APIs a year. How many do you imagine they even pretend to be a standard? https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence
      - pwdisswordfish0 4y ago
        > You "counterpoint" isn't even a counterpoint, but just reinforces the original comment. This sleight of hand is not going to work. > Literally not a standard shipped in Chrome, literally is something Chrome came up with and implemented on its own, literally only shipped in Chrome without any consensus or input from other browser implementers ... and literally hasn't gotten "someone to type up something that describes the Chromium implementation into the standard". Your choice to ignore this does not bode well for whether you should be taken seriously on matters of intellectual honesty. The fact that other browser vendors have not been forced to implement it by now contradicts what you are arguing to be true. All of the Chrome-proprietary APIs that shipped once upon a time in Chrome but were later removed from Chrome (incl. no remaining signs in subsequent draft standards) also contradicts it. Does Chrome ship non-standard stuff? Yes. So has Gecko. Webkit, too. Has Mozilla in particular been forced to implement some things for no reason other than it because became unavoidable at some point after it started shipping in Chrome? Yes. Does the standardization process merely consist of Chrome doing whatever it wants and the eventual result is a new standard (with nobody else being able to influence this or contribute anything of their own)? No. > And yet "no, this isn't true, this isn't how Chrome works at all". Nice strawman. The moment where you resort to putting words in someone else's mouth is the moment you forfeit. Goodbye.