4 ms·

They should be barred from shipping experimental or non-standardized features in Chrome to prevent them from abusing their monopoly and forcing others hands by

They should be barred from shipping experimental or non-standardized features in Chrome to prevent them from abusing their monopoly and forcing others hands by creating de-facto standards without a fair discourse. Experimental features should be allowed in special Chrome builds targeted at developers only, and not be allowed to come preinstalled on any consumer device.

cma 1y ago
Not sure about this, but if it was going to go in if the flag isn't turned on by default that seems fine without requiring a special developer build making most stuff even harder to get tested. The web broadly isn't going to rely on something that isn't default. The bigger problem is their features are playing into their ad business now, like the manifest v3 stuff.
skybrian 1y ago
Why? It seems like new API's should be tested with real users before becoming a web standard, and origin trials were a big improvement over what happened before with webkit specific CSS, etc.
- anthem2025 1y ago
  Because they have a history of abusing their monopoly on browsers to push new standards that only help them.
  - skybrian 1y ago
    What are some examples of that for web standards?
    - LikesPwsh 1y ago
      FLOC/Cohorts API, AMP, Manifest V3, Widevine, WEI.
      - bitpush 1y ago
        None of those are web standards. They are web technologies, but they arent standards unless other browsers agree to it. So pray tell, what should the browser do? Just sit on their hands, like Firefox? That's a classic example of how a browser could be mismanaged.
        lightedman 1y ago
        Widevine is absolutely a web DRM standard. Literally every major streaming service uses it.
- maxloh 1y ago
  This is actually the case for ECMAScript (JavaScript). All proposals must first be implemented by some browser vendors at Stage 3: > The proposal has been recommended for implementation. Then, the proposal shall be included in the standard at Stage 4: > Two compatible implementations which pass the Test262 acceptance tests https://tc39.es/process-document/ https://tc39.es/process-document/

cma 1y ago

Not sure about this, but if it was going to go in if the flag isn't turned on by default that seems fine without requiring a special developer build making most stuff even harder to get tested. The web broadly isn't going to rely on something that isn't default. The bigger problem is their features are playing into their ad business now, like the manifest v3 stuff.

skybrian 1y ago

Why? It seems like new API's should be tested with real users before becoming a web standard, and origin trials were a big improvement over what happened before with webkit specific CSS, etc.

anthem2025 1y ago
Because they have a history of abusing their monopoly on browsers to push new standards that only help them.
- skybrian 1y ago
  What are some examples of that for web standards?
  - LikesPwsh 1y ago
    FLOC/Cohorts API, AMP, Manifest V3, Widevine, WEI.
    - bitpush 1y ago
      None of those are web standards. They are web technologies, but they arent standards unless other browsers agree to it. So pray tell, what should the browser do? Just sit on their hands, like Firefox? That's a classic example of how a browser could be mismanaged.
      - lightedman 1y ago
        Widevine is absolutely a web DRM standard. Literally every major streaming service uses it.
maxloh 1y ago
This is actually the case for ECMAScript (JavaScript). All proposals must first be implemented by some browser vendors at Stage 3: > The proposal has been recommended for implementation. Then, the proposal shall be included in the standard at Stage 4: > Two compatible implementations which pass the Test262 acceptance tests https://tc39.es/process-document/ https://tc39.es/process-document/