4 ms·

But they are adhering to standards as well, more so than anyone else for that matter, point to an instance where they're not. Also it takes ages for stuff to ge

by yanw 15y ago

But they are adhering to standards as well, more so than anyone else for that matter, point to an instance where they're not. Also it takes ages for stuff to get standardized, are you suggesting that no technology should be applicable until it's the standard? I see no issue in introducing new cool tech specially if it's opensource.

dos1 15y ago
I agree, they do a great job following the standards. I love that. What I don't love is when they break away. That's my whole point - work with the standards body to get your new cool tech introduced. Don't just go rogue and do whatever you want, that's when problems arise.
- yanw 15y ago
  "Breaking away" as you describe it sounds like innovation to me, and pacing innovation to standard bodies would kill it. I can't think of specifics but surly most of what is considered the standard today was once the experimentation of one company or one lab.
  - dos1 15y ago
    Really? When Microsoft "broke away" and created ActiveX, you were in support of that too because it was innovation? Or how bout Adobe and Flash?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - statictype 15y ago
      ActiveX and Flash were certainly innovations. One of them didn't pan out[1] and the other did and lasted for quite some time. You realize that if not for Flash, sites like Youtube wouldn't have been possible at the time that it was released? [1] ActieX didn't pan out for the web as a whole - it fared well behind the walls of enterprises.
    - AlisdairO 15y ago
      If Microsoft made ActiveX open and easy for other browser manufactures to implement in a cross-platform manner, I would absolutely have been in support of it. They didn't, so I wasn't. Standards bodies move slowly. Non-standardised innovation across browsers is absolutely to be encouraged, as long as it is done in a manner that allows others to implement that innovation too. This sort of innovation is what helps us decide what is worth being made into a standard.
    - DannoHung 15y ago
      Maybe not ActiveX, but when Microsoft created XMLHttpRequest in their javascript engine, that ended up being pretty significant and great for how the web works today.
- jrockway 15y ago
  What problems arise? Why should "standards bodies" affect what features Free Software has? Why allow anyone to release any software at all?
- myko 15y ago
  I would agree with you if their breaking away weren't open sourced.
marshray 15y ago
The problem is when they run off and code something and implement it in Chrome, and then when design problems are found in it during the standardization process they say "well it's deployed in too many units already to fix now", effectively reducing the pool of outside experts in the standards orgs to a bunch of rubber-stamping copy editors.
- dchest 15y ago
  Any examples?
  - marshray 15y ago
    I hesitate to point at examples because I like all the people involved and feel it's not worth making look like more than they are. But I do think there is some basis for the sentiment. So if you are interested, you could study the process by which the HTTP Origin header came to not allow double quotes. There will always be a natural tension between those shipping code and a standardization process.
jrockway 15y ago
I think people complaining about this are upset about the network effect, rather than Chrome adding new features. Say you love Firefox. One day, your favorite website decides to switch entirely to SPDY, and you can't use Firefox anymore. It's natural to blame Google for this, since they invented SPDY and put the client into production. But really, it's that site's developer's fault for using nonstandard features. This happens all the time; Firefox adds non-standard CSS transforms, Microsoft adds non-standard Javascript functionality, and Apple adds proprietary video codecs to Safari. When your web app depends on these things, you hurt your users. But it's your fault for using nonstandard features; it's not Apple's or Google's or Microsoft's fault for making their browser support them. If this upsets you, consider software in general. To use Facebook, you have to use Facebook. That's nonstandard! To use an Emacs extension, you have to use Emacs. That's nonstandard! And so on. Google and Mozilla are especially innocent, since Apple and Microsoft can easily steal any features they want from Chrome and Firefox. They're the only ones out in the open, and for that, I think they deserve to try new things for the web. If they stick, the other vendors can easily support the new features.
- nudded 15y ago
  first you say "One day, your favorite website decides to switch entirely to SPDY, and you can't use Firefox anymore. It's natural to blame Google for this, since they invented SPDY and put the client into production. But really, it's that site's developer's fault for using nonstandard features." then "Google and Mozilla are especially innocent, since Apple and Microsoft can easily steal any features they want from Chrome and Firefox. They're the only ones out in the open, and for that, I think they deserve to try new things for the web. If they stick, the other vendors can easily support the new features." How would these features stick, if developers using them are to blame?
  - jrockway 15y ago
    By degrading gracefully, of course. It's why you can read GMail in IE6, even though the experience is a lot better in Chrome 17.
- ootachi 15y ago

by yanw 15y ago

dos1 15y ago

I agree, they do a great job following the standards. I love that. What I don't love is when they break away. That's my whole point - work with the standards body to get your new cool tech introduced. Don't just go rogue and do whatever you want, that's when problems arise.

yanw 15y ago
"Breaking away" as you describe it sounds like innovation to me, and pacing innovation to standard bodies would kill it. I can't think of specifics but surly most of what is considered the standard today was once the experimentation of one company or one lab.
- dos1 15y ago
  Really? When Microsoft "broke away" and created ActiveX, you were in support of that too because it was innovation? Or how bout Adobe and Flash?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - statictype 15y ago
    ActiveX and Flash were certainly innovations. One of them didn't pan out[1] and the other did and lasted for quite some time. You realize that if not for Flash, sites like Youtube wouldn't have been possible at the time that it was released? [1] ActieX didn't pan out for the web as a whole - it fared well behind the walls of enterprises.
  - AlisdairO 15y ago
    If Microsoft made ActiveX open and easy for other browser manufactures to implement in a cross-platform manner, I would absolutely have been in support of it. They didn't, so I wasn't. Standards bodies move slowly. Non-standardised innovation across browsers is absolutely to be encouraged, as long as it is done in a manner that allows others to implement that innovation too. This sort of innovation is what helps us decide what is worth being made into a standard.
  - DannoHung 15y ago
    Maybe not ActiveX, but when Microsoft created XMLHttpRequest in their javascript engine, that ended up being pretty significant and great for how the web works today.
jrockway 15y ago
What problems arise? Why should "standards bodies" affect what features Free Software has? Why allow anyone to release any software at all?
myko 15y ago
I would agree with you if their breaking away weren't open sourced.

marshray 15y ago

The problem is when they run off and code something and implement it in Chrome, and then when design problems are found in it during the standardization process they say "well it's deployed in too many units already to fix now", effectively reducing the pool of outside experts in the standards orgs to a bunch of rubber-stamping copy editors.

dchest 15y ago
Any examples?
- marshray 15y ago
  I hesitate to point at examples because I like all the people involved and feel it's not worth making look like more than they are. But I do think there is some basis for the sentiment. So if you are interested, you could study the process by which the HTTP Origin header came to not allow double quotes. There will always be a natural tension between those shipping code and a standardization process.

jrockway 15y ago

I think people complaining about this are upset about the network effect, rather than Chrome adding new features. Say you love Firefox. One day, your favorite website decides to switch entirely to SPDY, and you can't use Firefox anymore. It's natural to blame Google for this, since they invented SPDY and put the client into production. But really, it's that site's developer's fault for using nonstandard features. This happens all the time; Firefox adds non-standard CSS transforms, Microsoft adds non-standard Javascript functionality, and Apple adds proprietary video codecs to Safari. When your web app depends on these things, you hurt your users. But it's your fault for using nonstandard features; it's not Apple's or Google's or Microsoft's fault for making their browser support them. If this upsets you, consider software in general. To use Facebook, you have to use Facebook. That's nonstandard! To use an Emacs extension, you have to use Emacs. That's nonstandard! And so on. Google and Mozilla are especially innocent, since Apple and Microsoft can easily steal any features they want from Chrome and Firefox. They're the only ones out in the open, and for that, I think they deserve to try new things for the web. If they stick, the other vendors can easily support the new features.

nudded 15y ago
first you say "One day, your favorite website decides to switch entirely to SPDY, and you can't use Firefox anymore. It's natural to blame Google for this, since they invented SPDY and put the client into production. But really, it's that site's developer's fault for using nonstandard features." then "Google and Mozilla are especially innocent, since Apple and Microsoft can easily steal any features they want from Chrome and Firefox. They're the only ones out in the open, and for that, I think they deserve to try new things for the web. If they stick, the other vendors can easily support the new features." How would these features stick, if developers using them are to blame?
- jrockway 15y ago
  By degrading gracefully, of course. It's why you can read GMail in IE6, even though the experience is a lot better in Chrome 17.
ootachi 15y ago