4 ms·

Why do we allow Google to singlehandedly keep pumping garbage into the web ecosystem? Do they own W3C?

sieabahlpark 2y ago
[dead]
moron4hire 2y ago
While I think this particular idea is bad, Google is following the W3C process for proposing new features. This is what browser vendors are supposed to do: develop the feature, document it so other vendors can implement/compete it, see if there's enough early-adopter developer interest to bother standardizing.
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  Are there any examples of the W3C refusing a submission from Google?
  - moron4hire 2y ago
    ... no, you're still not understanding the nature of the W3C. The W3C is descriptive, not prescriptive. It doesn't have any regulatory power, so it can't make design decisions or value judgements of any kind. It isn't even a separate group from the browser vendors; while individuals may join, the vast majority of active members are the developers working on the browsers. The teeth come from the other browser vendors. They make pledges to each other to implement each other's features. They collaborate through the W3C to come to a consensus on feature designs, because a feature can't get standardized if it's not implemented by more than one vendor and it won't get implemented if the vendors can't come to a consensus. Anything the W3C says is not how browsers should work, it's how they already work.
machine_ghost 2y ago
You have a (very common) mistaken view of what the W3C is and how it works. It is NOT an independent standards body that tells browser makers what to do! In fact, it's the exact opposite: the browser makers (and Google is a big one) tell the W3C what to do. This makes perfect sense if you think about it, because the browser makers ultimately decide what goes into the browser. If the W3C was "in charge" and tried to make Google (or another browser maker) do anything, Google could simply ignore them. That system wouldn't last. It has to work this way ... and Google (along with Apple, Microsoft, etc.) have decided this syntax is best for them (and possibly their users).

[dead]

While I think this particular idea is bad, Google is following the W3C process for proposing new features. This is what browser vendors are supposed to do: develop the feature, document it so other vendors can implement/compete it, see if there's enough early-adopter developer interest to bother standardizing.

tonyedgecombe 2y ago
Are there any examples of the W3C refusing a submission from Google?
- moron4hire 2y ago
  ... no, you're still not understanding the nature of the W3C. The W3C is descriptive, not prescriptive. It doesn't have any regulatory power, so it can't make design decisions or value judgements of any kind. It isn't even a separate group from the browser vendors; while individuals may join, the vast majority of active members are the developers working on the browsers. The teeth come from the other browser vendors. They make pledges to each other to implement each other's features. They collaborate through the W3C to come to a consensus on feature designs, because a feature can't get standardized if it's not implemented by more than one vendor and it won't get implemented if the vendors can't come to a consensus. Anything the W3C says is not how browsers should work, it's how they already work.

machine_ghost 2y ago

You have a (very common) mistaken view of what the W3C is and how it works. It is NOT an independent standards body that tells browser makers what to do! In fact, it's the exact opposite: the browser makers (and Google is a big one) tell the W3C what to do. This makes perfect sense if you think about it, because the browser makers ultimately decide what goes into the browser. If the W3C was "in charge" and tried to make Google (or another browser maker) do anything, Google could simply ignore them. That system wouldn't last. It has to work this way ... and Google (along with Apple, Microsoft, etc.) have decided this syntax is best for them (and possibly their users).