4 ms·

I do wonder if it's the case of "90% of completeness takes 90% of time; the remaining 10% takes another 90%". Though, I suppose even if true, it would still be

by _flux 1y ago

I do wonder if it's the case of "90% of completeness takes 90% of time; the remaining 10% takes another 90%". Though, I suppose even if true, it would still be a pretty good timeframe.

InsideOutSanta 1y ago
I'll guess that the remaining 10% will take more than another 90%, and also that it will keep growing as time goes on. Web standards are becoming more complex every day.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  This is one huge blindspot in the web spec process in my opinion. Any new spec is considered on the context of existing browsers and very little consideration seems to be given to the scope of the web standards as a whole.
  - zelphirkalt 1y ago
    Perhaps there should be levels of conformance and important businesses and government platforms should be required to work on all browsers that support at least level X, where level X is not everything and the kitchen sink, but really only the minimal stuff. No SPA, just forms and such basic things, accessibility should be very high and mandatory etc.
  - troupo 1y ago
    There's also no actual way of saying "no" to a web standard. The whole process is designed around moving a spec forward through stages. To quote Rich Harris, the author of Svelte: https://x.com/Rich_Harris/status/1841605646128460111 https://x.com/Rich_Harris/status/1841605646128460111 --- start quote --- saying 'no' is the key to good software design, but in standards you can only 'champion' proposals — you can't champion the _lack_ of a proposal. the best you can hope for is inertia. in my experience the only feedback that is welcome is around the details of an idea, never around whether the idea has merit in the first place, and you should expect to be reminded that implementers are the only people whose opinions actually matter. --- end quote --- and someone else in the same conversation: --- start quote --- You can't practically anti-champion standards that are small improvements to features that ought to have been abandoned, like Shadow DOM. Shadow DOM sucks, but it sucked a little less when they added CSS Module Scripts, Selection.getComposedRanges(), ElementInternals.shadowRoot… https://x.com/dfabu/status/1841936377350652391 https://x.com/dfabu/status/1841936377350652391 ---
- theshrike79 1y ago
  They're basically trying to catch up to a moving train. It's doable, but not easy especially when the train engine is being stuffed with high-octane fuel by Google's resources.
IshKebab 1y ago
Yeah definitely. For the web it's more like the last 0.1% takes 99.9% of the time. And it's not like you can skip it either. Nobody is going to use a browser that is missing 0.1% of the web platform - that probably means something like 1% of websites are broke in some way and that's a terrible experience. They are decades of work away from having a browser that would be competitive with Chrome or Firefox.

by _flux 1y ago

I do wonder if it's the case of "90% of completeness takes 90% of time; the remaining 10% takes another 90%". Though, I suppose even if true, it would still be a pretty good timeframe.

InsideOutSanta 1y ago

I'll guess that the remaining 10% will take more than another 90%, and also that it will keep growing as time goes on. Web standards are becoming more complex every day.

_heimdall 1y ago
This is one huge blindspot in the web spec process in my opinion. Any new spec is considered on the context of existing browsers and very little consideration seems to be given to the scope of the web standards as a whole.
- zelphirkalt 1y ago
  Perhaps there should be levels of conformance and important businesses and government platforms should be required to work on all browsers that support at least level X, where level X is not everything and the kitchen sink, but really only the minimal stuff. No SPA, just forms and such basic things, accessibility should be very high and mandatory etc.
- troupo 1y ago
  There's also no actual way of saying "no" to a web standard. The whole process is designed around moving a spec forward through stages. To quote Rich Harris, the author of Svelte: https://x.com/Rich_Harris/status/1841605646128460111 https://x.com/Rich_Harris/status/1841605646128460111 --- start quote --- saying 'no' is the key to good software design, but in standards you can only 'champion' proposals — you can't champion the _lack_ of a proposal. the best you can hope for is inertia. in my experience the only feedback that is welcome is around the details of an idea, never around whether the idea has merit in the first place, and you should expect to be reminded that implementers are the only people whose opinions actually matter. --- end quote --- and someone else in the same conversation: --- start quote --- You can't practically anti-champion standards that are small improvements to features that ought to have been abandoned, like Shadow DOM. Shadow DOM sucks, but it sucked a little less when they added CSS Module Scripts, Selection.getComposedRanges(), ElementInternals.shadowRoot… https://x.com/dfabu/status/1841936377350652391 https://x.com/dfabu/status/1841936377350652391 ---
theshrike79 1y ago
They're basically trying to catch up to a moving train. It's doable, but not easy especially when the train engine is being stuffed with high-octane fuel by Google's resources.

IshKebab 1y ago

Yeah definitely. For the web it's more like the last 0.1% takes 99.9% of the time. And it's not like you can skip it either. Nobody is going to use a browser that is missing 0.1% of the web platform - that probably means something like 1% of websites are broke in some way and that's a terrible experience. They are decades of work away from having a browser that would be competitive with Chrome or Firefox.