5 ms·

I'd believe this- if it were not for the fact that Google is ignoring the W3C across the board. This includes privacy sandbox (fledge) and topics (floc) as wel

I'd believe this- if it were not for the fact that Google is ignoring the W3C across the board. This includes privacy sandbox (fledge) and topics (floc) as well. Google can come up with good reasons why something that has negative impacts on the entirety of the ecosystem (except them), because it always ends with Google in a stronger position

tptacek 3y ago
What's there to believe? Standards follow implementations. The W3C aren't the browser police; they just standardize the interoperable things browsers do. It's not W3C's (or WhatWG's) role to "oppose" random things browser vendors decide to do.
- colordrops 3y ago
  Maybe it should be their role. Arguably, things like browser standards are as important to society as electrical or network standards.
  - Analemma_ 3y ago
    Maybe, but it's a moot point, because there's no way to get from here to there. If the browser vendors want to add a standard, they will; and if they don't, they won't. On one or two prior occasions the W3C has proposed something that the browser makers didn't like, they unanimously told the W3C to go pound sand, and that was the end of it.
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    But then you’d also need a world police who enforces that.
    - colordrops 3y ago
      Who enforces electrical and network standards? Those don't require world police.
      - KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
        > Who enforces electrical and network standards? Those don't require world police. Most blocs have their own standards. Commonwealth countries follow one standard, EU countries another, North American engineering standards are not the same as Japanese ones.
  - PaulHoule 3y ago
    I wrote postal letters to the FTC, the president, my senators and congressman telling them to investigate WEI as another monopoly move on the part of Google and highlighted that the FBI says you should use an ad blocker. You should too.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      The letter to the FTC might do something, in a statistical sense, if they're already tracking the correspondence they're getting because this issue is in their purview. The other letters are a waste of paper and ink.
      - PaulHoule 3y ago
        See https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition/contact-information https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competi... for the FTC's contact information
  - tptacek 3y ago
    It can't be their role. Standard organizations enjoy no de jure authority at all. The most they could possibly do is certify all the other "complying" browsers as "W3C-approved", and nobody cares who doesn't already care about the particulars here.
  - wnevets 3y ago
    > Maybe it should be their role. Who would grant them such a authority and how would it be enforced?
    - tedunangst 3y ago
      Can't wait for the FBI to bash in my door for running curl because it fails to meet established legal criteria for browser operation.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
    The W3C had their chance in the early 2000s and they hyperfixated on XML nonsense while browser and web evolution stagnated. I'm not saying that the status quo is perfect, but if we want W3C to try again then we should make sure we don't run into the same issues 20 years ago.
    - Qwertious 3y ago
      And here I thought web evolution stagnated in the early 2000s due to IE6. It's vital we don't get locked into a single dominant browser that ignores open standards whenever it's convenient to them.
      - TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
        The web's stagnation was not monocausal. IE6 was bad, but W3C wasn't doing anything to help beyond fixating on XML work that never went anywhere. I agree we shouldn't let a single web browser dominate. I'm just saying that the W3C doesn't have any power to do so nor have they shown themselves capable of pulling it off.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    [flagged]
- wackget 3y ago
  > It's not W3C's (or WhatWG's) role to "oppose" random things browser vendors decide to do. Then why are they making standards in the first place? They're already deeply involved in the operation of browsers; they are practically morally obliged to object to things which could harm the Web.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    For the same reason people write dictionaries.
    - 9dev 3y ago
      Im not sure whether that example supports your point. The Oxford dictionary is essentially an authority on spelling, and their editors and councils definitely have weight in debates on the proper spelling of things.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - hangonhn 3y ago
        Wait. No. The OED is descriptive of English (UK only?) but is not prescriptive. They don't tell people what to spell or what they need to mean. They describe the spelling and meaning as it is being done. This is why there are new words that get added every year. It's not as if OED sit around and think of new words. I'm not arguing if the OP is right or not but I don't think the OED example is correct.
        School-Cotton 3y ago
        The OED is definitely not UK only.
      - jonathankoren 3y ago
- btown 3y ago
  The W3C's draft vision statement [0] clearly states: > Aim to reduce centralization in Web architecture, minimizing single points of failure and single points of control. IMO it is entirely in scope for, and part of the responsibility of, the W3C to introduce a specification that explicitly forbids user agents from implementing Web Environment Integrity or any similar system as currently drafted. One might say that the members' conflicts of interest make it likely that they will abdicate this responsibility, but that doesn't make it any less their role! [0] https://www.w3.org/TR/w3c-vision/#principles https://www.w3.org/TR/w3c-vision/#principles
  - toast0 3y ago
    They don't have power to enforce specificiations, so what's the point of a negative specification?
    - JeremyNT 3y ago
      It's a signal if nothing else. Maybe Google cares, maybe not, but there's no sense in having a spineless standards body that just turns around and says that the spec is whatever Google implements in Chrome.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    The W3C has no ability to "forbid" anything. You're going to find professional organizations resistant to undertakings that beclown themselves. W3C's statute and importance is improved when they publish things that the industry implements. That is the only mechanism they have to find impact. They are not the Internet police. I know this is fuzzy-seeming because of all the "MUST NOT"'s in standards language, but it's not really fuzzy at all.
madeofpalk 3y ago
It's not really that Google is ignoring the standards process. It's that the process involves a feature-flagged shipped implementation before it can be a part of the standard. The only way for FLoC to become a standard is for them to do exactly what they're doing now - opt in/feature-flagged evaluation. Of course, Google could continue to ignore the standards process and just make this generally available in their browser even if it doesn't become a standard.
- troupo 3y ago
  > Of course, Google could continue to ignore the standards process and just make this generally available in their browser even if it doesn't become a standard. That's exactly what they've been doing with dozens of "standards".

tptacek 3y ago

What's there to believe? Standards follow implementations. The W3C aren't the browser police; they just standardize the interoperable things browsers do. It's not W3C's (or WhatWG's) role to "oppose" random things browser vendors decide to do.

colordrops 3y ago
Maybe it should be their role. Arguably, things like browser standards are as important to society as electrical or network standards.
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  Maybe, but it's a moot point, because there's no way to get from here to there. If the browser vendors want to add a standard, they will; and if they don't, they won't. On one or two prior occasions the W3C has proposed something that the browser makers didn't like, they unanimously told the W3C to go pound sand, and that was the end of it.
- Semaphor 3y ago
  But then you’d also need a world police who enforces that.
  - colordrops 3y ago
    Who enforces electrical and network standards? Those don't require world police.
    - KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
      > Who enforces electrical and network standards? Those don't require world police. Most blocs have their own standards. Commonwealth countries follow one standard, EU countries another, North American engineering standards are not the same as Japanese ones.
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  I wrote postal letters to the FTC, the president, my senators and congressman telling them to investigate WEI as another monopoly move on the part of Google and highlighted that the FBI says you should use an ad blocker. You should too.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    The letter to the FTC might do something, in a statistical sense, if they're already tracking the correspondence they're getting because this issue is in their purview. The other letters are a waste of paper and ink.
    - PaulHoule 3y ago
      See https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition/contact-information https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competi... for the FTC's contact information
- tptacek 3y ago
  It can't be their role. Standard organizations enjoy no de jure authority at all. The most they could possibly do is certify all the other "complying" browsers as "W3C-approved", and nobody cares who doesn't already care about the particulars here.
- wnevets 3y ago
  > Maybe it should be their role. Who would grant them such a authority and how would it be enforced?
  - tedunangst 3y ago
    Can't wait for the FBI to bash in my door for running curl because it fails to meet established legal criteria for browser operation.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
  The W3C had their chance in the early 2000s and they hyperfixated on XML nonsense while browser and web evolution stagnated. I'm not saying that the status quo is perfect, but if we want W3C to try again then we should make sure we don't run into the same issues 20 years ago.
  - Qwertious 3y ago
    And here I thought web evolution stagnated in the early 2000s due to IE6. It's vital we don't get locked into a single dominant browser that ignores open standards whenever it's convenient to them.
    - TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
      The web's stagnation was not monocausal. IE6 was bad, but W3C wasn't doing anything to help beyond fixating on XML work that never went anywhere. I agree we shouldn't let a single web browser dominate. I'm just saying that the W3C doesn't have any power to do so nor have they shown themselves capable of pulling it off.
- bawolff 3y ago
  [flagged]
wackget 3y ago
> It's not W3C's (or WhatWG's) role to "oppose" random things browser vendors decide to do. Then why are they making standards in the first place? They're already deeply involved in the operation of browsers; they are practically morally obliged to object to things which could harm the Web.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  For the same reason people write dictionaries.
  - 9dev 3y ago
    Im not sure whether that example supports your point. The Oxford dictionary is essentially an authority on spelling, and their editors and councils definitely have weight in debates on the proper spelling of things.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - hangonhn 3y ago
      Wait. No. The OED is descriptive of English (UK only?) but is not prescriptive. They don't tell people what to spell or what they need to mean. They describe the spelling and meaning as it is being done. This is why there are new words that get added every year. It's not as if OED sit around and think of new words. I'm not arguing if the OP is right or not but I don't think the OED example is correct.
      - School-Cotton 3y ago
        The OED is definitely not UK only.
    - jonathankoren 3y ago
btown 3y ago
The W3C's draft vision statement [0] clearly states: > Aim to reduce centralization in Web architecture, minimizing single points of failure and single points of control. IMO it is entirely in scope for, and part of the responsibility of, the W3C to introduce a specification that explicitly forbids user agents from implementing Web Environment Integrity or any similar system as currently drafted. One might say that the members' conflicts of interest make it likely that they will abdicate this responsibility, but that doesn't make it any less their role! [0] https://www.w3.org/TR/w3c-vision/#principles https://www.w3.org/TR/w3c-vision/#principles
- toast0 3y ago
  They don't have power to enforce specificiations, so what's the point of a negative specification?
  - JeremyNT 3y ago
    It's a signal if nothing else. Maybe Google cares, maybe not, but there's no sense in having a spineless standards body that just turns around and says that the spec is whatever Google implements in Chrome.
- tptacek 3y ago
  The W3C has no ability to "forbid" anything. You're going to find professional organizations resistant to undertakings that beclown themselves. W3C's statute and importance is improved when they publish things that the industry implements. That is the only mechanism they have to find impact. They are not the Internet police. I know this is fuzzy-seeming because of all the "MUST NOT"'s in standards language, but it's not really fuzzy at all.

madeofpalk 3y ago

It's not really that Google is ignoring the standards process. It's that the process involves a feature-flagged shipped implementation before it can be a part of the standard. The only way for FLoC to become a standard is for them to do exactly what they're doing now - opt in/feature-flagged evaluation. Of course, Google could continue to ignore the standards process and just make this generally available in their browser even if it doesn't become a standard.

troupo 3y ago
> Of course, Google could continue to ignore the standards process and just make this generally available in their browser even if it doesn't become a standard. That's exactly what they've been doing with dozens of "standards".