5 ms·

Standards start at Google nowadays..

by zb3 2y ago

Y-bar 2y ago
… And that's clearly a major concern because my front end developer colleagues treat everything that Google does as the one true way of the web. No matter if it is accepted into a standards body, or if the Chrome implementation is buggy, that is their target and every other browser is an after-thought at best.
- Etheryte 2y ago
  I think this misses the point. If the vast majority of your users use something Chromium based, that's where you should put most of your effort. It doesn't matter if it's the right way or whatnot, your users only care about whether it works for them or not. Users don't care about the technicalities.
  - fuzzzerd 2y ago
    While true and a pragmatic approach, that's another part of the same root problem.
- zcw100 2y ago
  Historically nothing has changed just who’s on top. Mosaic, Netscape, IE, Chrome…
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
zelon88 2y ago
Considering the HTML provided by google dot com has 19 warnings and a Content-Security-Policy error for a page that only has a text field and a logo, I'm gonna take my chances and apply to become a W3C invited expert.
- vntok 2y ago
  Surely they have pretty good reasons for doing things that way, don't you think? That page is probably among the top 3 most analyzed, optimized and A/B tested webpages in the world.
  - zelon88 2y ago
    That's not my question to answer, though. Google controls the browser, the page, the CDN, AND to a large extent the very standards that the browser has to comply with. If what you claim is true, with all of this authority, why can't they write a compliant web page?
    - fouc 2y ago
      That's precisely why it seems likely to be deliberate, they could be playing 3D chess. It could be a way to keep some kind of competitive edge or some kind of fingerprinting strategy or for some other reason altogether.
    - vntok 2y ago
      > If what you claim is true, with all of this authority, why can't they write a compliant web page? I'm not sure why you'd think that they "can't" write a compliant web page. It's obvious they can, just like it's obvious they've been paying a bunch of experts top dollars for multiple decades to think about and test what exactly to write in this page's code. It's also obvious they've taken into account the basic fact that every character* they add costs them a measurable amount of money to serve given their scale. It's therefore pretty obvious that they're deliberately choosing to write a non-compliant web page. Presumably because among the multiple billions of users they serve this page to, a high-enough-to-matter portion is still using old and/or non compliant web browsers and they don't want to cut them out. * past certain packet length cutoffs
pjmlp 2y ago
Yeah, everyone apparently failed to learn from IE lesson, and served the Web on a plate to Google. They even ship Chrome with their applications, because people can't be bothered to learn neither native UI frameworks, nor portable Web standards.

Standards start at Google nowadays..

by zb3 2y ago

Standards start at Google nowadays..

… And that's clearly a major concern because my front end developer colleagues treat everything that Google does as the one true way of the web. No matter if it is accepted into a standards body, or if the Chrome implementation is buggy, that is their target and every other browser is an after-thought at best.

Etheryte 2y ago
I think this misses the point. If the vast majority of your users use something Chromium based, that's where you should put most of your effort. It doesn't matter if it's the right way or whatnot, your users only care about whether it works for them or not. Users don't care about the technicalities.
- fuzzzerd 2y ago
  While true and a pragmatic approach, that's another part of the same root problem.
zcw100 2y ago
Historically nothing has changed just who’s on top. Mosaic, Netscape, IE, Chrome…

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

zelon88 2y ago

Considering the HTML provided by google dot com has 19 warnings and a Content-Security-Policy error for a page that only has a text field and a logo, I'm gonna take my chances and apply to become a W3C invited expert.

vntok 2y ago
Surely they have pretty good reasons for doing things that way, don't you think? That page is probably among the top 3 most analyzed, optimized and A/B tested webpages in the world.
- zelon88 2y ago
  That's not my question to answer, though. Google controls the browser, the page, the CDN, AND to a large extent the very standards that the browser has to comply with. If what you claim is true, with all of this authority, why can't they write a compliant web page?
  - fouc 2y ago
    That's precisely why it seems likely to be deliberate, they could be playing 3D chess. It could be a way to keep some kind of competitive edge or some kind of fingerprinting strategy or for some other reason altogether.
  - vntok 2y ago
    > If what you claim is true, with all of this authority, why can't they write a compliant web page? I'm not sure why you'd think that they "can't" write a compliant web page. It's obvious they can, just like it's obvious they've been paying a bunch of experts top dollars for multiple decades to think about and test what exactly to write in this page's code. It's also obvious they've taken into account the basic fact that every character* they add costs them a measurable amount of money to serve given their scale. It's therefore pretty obvious that they're deliberately choosing to write a non-compliant web page. Presumably because among the multiple billions of users they serve this page to, a high-enough-to-matter portion is still using old and/or non compliant web browsers and they don't want to cut them out. * past certain packet length cutoffs

pjmlp 2y ago

Yeah, everyone apparently failed to learn from IE lesson, and served the Web on a plate to Google. They even ship Chrome with their applications, because people can't be bothered to learn neither native UI frameworks, nor portable Web standards.