4 ms·

For me the usage argument sounds like an argument to kill the other standards rather than to keep this one. Browsers should try things. But if after many years

by vladms 11mo ago

For me the usage argument sounds like an argument to kill the other standards rather than to keep this one. Browsers should try things. But if after many years there is no adoption they should also retire them. This would be no different if the organization is charity or not.

troupo 11mo ago
> For me the usage argument sounds like an argument to kill the other standards rather than to keep this one. Google themselves have a document on why killing anything in the web platform is problematic: e.g. Chrome stats severely under-report corporate usage. See "Blink principles of web compatibility" https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC-pBBvsazYfCNNUSkPqAVpSpNJ96U8trhNkfV0v9fk/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC-pBBvsazYfCNNUSkPqAVpS... It has great examples for when removal didn't break things, and when it did break things etc. I don't know if anyone pays attention to this document anymore. Someone from Chrome linked to this document when they wanted to remove alert/prompt, and it completely contradicted their narrative.