3 ms·

A nice recent example is "smooshgate", wherein it was determined that breaking websites with an older version of Mootools installed was not an acceptable way to

by svieira 11mo ago

A nice recent example is "smooshgate", wherein it was determined that breaking websites with an older version of Mootools installed was not an acceptable way to move the web forward, so we got `Array.prototype.flat` instead of `Array.prototype.flatten`: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17141024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17141024 > I don't recall a part of the web where browser developers were viewed as not having agency Being a servant isn't "not having agency", it's "who do I exercise my agency on behalf of". Tools don't have agency, servants do.

akerl_ 11mo ago
I think you're reading way too much into that. For one thing, that's a proposal for Javascript, whose controlling body is TC39. For another, this was a bog standard example of a draft proposal where a bug was discovered, and rollout was adjusted. If that's having a "servant-oriented mindset", so do 99% of software projects.
- svieira 11mo ago
  > this was a bog standard example of a draft proposal where a bug was discovered, and rollout was adjusted Yes, but the "bug" here was "a single website is broken". Here, we are talking about an outcome that will break many websites (more than removing USB support would break) and that is considered acceptable. > That's a proposal for Javascript, whose controlling body is TC39 Yes, and the culture of TC39 used to be the culture of those who develop tools for using the web (don't break the Space Jam website, etc.)
  - akerl_ 11mo ago
    Where are you seeing that it’s a single website? Mootools is a JavaScript library used by tons of websites. Also, the entire measurement is fundamentally just part of the decision. Removing Flash broke tons of sites, and it was done anyways because Flash was a nightmare.
    - svieira 11mo ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17141024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17141024 links to https://developer.chrome.com/blog/smooshgate https://developer.chrome.com/blog/smooshgate which says: > Shipping the feature in Firefox Nightly caused at least one popular website to break. and links to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1443630 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1443630 which points to a single site as being broken. There's no check as to the size of the impacted user base, but there is a link in the blog post to https://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#support-existing-content https://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#support-existi... which says: > Existing content often relies upon expected user agent processing and behavior to function as intended. Processing requirements should be specified to ensure that user agents implementing this specification will be able to handle most existing content. In particular, it should be possible to process existing HTML documents as HTML 5 and get results that are compatible with the existing expectations of users and authors, based on the behavior of existing browsers. It should be made possible, though not necessarily required, to do this without mode switching. > Content relying on existing browser behavior can take many forms. It may rely on elements, attributes or APIs that are part of earlier HTML specifications, but not part of HTML 5, or on features that are entirely proprietary. It may depend on specific error handling rules. In rare cases, it may depend on a feature from earlier HTML specifications not being implemented as specified Which is the "servant-oriented" mindset I'm talking about here. > Removing Flash broke tons of sites Yes, but Flash wasn't part of a standard, it was an ad-hoc thing that each browser _happened_ to support (rough consensus and working code). There were no "build on this and we'll guarantee it will continue to work" agreement between authors and implementers of the web. XSLT 1.0, as painful as it is, is part of that agreement.
      - akerl_ 11mo ago
        I think you’re pretty off-base about how web standards work and how much of an “agreement” they constitute. Flash doesn’t have an RFC because it was a commercial design by Adobe, not because it wasn’t a defined spec that was supported by browsers. Meanwhile SSLv2 and v3 and FTP and gopher have RFCs and have been removed. Making an RFC about a technology is not a commitment of any kind to support it for any length of time. You’ve conjured a mystique around historical browser ideology that doesn’t exist, and that’s why what you’re seeing today that feel at odds with that fantasy.

by svieira 11mo ago

akerl_ 11mo ago

I think you're reading way too much into that. For one thing, that's a proposal for Javascript, whose controlling body is TC39. For another, this was a bog standard example of a draft proposal where a bug was discovered, and rollout was adjusted. If that's having a "servant-oriented mindset", so do 99% of software projects.

svieira 11mo ago
> this was a bog standard example of a draft proposal where a bug was discovered, and rollout was adjusted Yes, but the "bug" here was "a single website is broken". Here, we are talking about an outcome that will break many websites (more than removing USB support would break) and that is considered acceptable. > That's a proposal for Javascript, whose controlling body is TC39 Yes, and the culture of TC39 used to be the culture of those who develop tools for using the web (don't break the Space Jam website, etc.)
- akerl_ 11mo ago
  Where are you seeing that it’s a single website? Mootools is a JavaScript library used by tons of websites. Also, the entire measurement is fundamentally just part of the decision. Removing Flash broke tons of sites, and it was done anyways because Flash was a nightmare.
  - svieira 11mo ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17141024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17141024 links to https://developer.chrome.com/blog/smooshgate https://developer.chrome.com/blog/smooshgate which says: > Shipping the feature in Firefox Nightly caused at least one popular website to break. and links to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1443630 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1443630 which points to a single site as being broken. There's no check as to the size of the impacted user base, but there is a link in the blog post to https://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#support-existing-content https://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#support-existi... which says: > Existing content often relies upon expected user agent processing and behavior to function as intended. Processing requirements should be specified to ensure that user agents implementing this specification will be able to handle most existing content. In particular, it should be possible to process existing HTML documents as HTML 5 and get results that are compatible with the existing expectations of users and authors, based on the behavior of existing browsers. It should be made possible, though not necessarily required, to do this without mode switching. > Content relying on existing browser behavior can take many forms. It may rely on elements, attributes or APIs that are part of earlier HTML specifications, but not part of HTML 5, or on features that are entirely proprietary. It may depend on specific error handling rules. In rare cases, it may depend on a feature from earlier HTML specifications not being implemented as specified Which is the "servant-oriented" mindset I'm talking about here. > Removing Flash broke tons of sites Yes, but Flash wasn't part of a standard, it was an ad-hoc thing that each browser _happened_ to support (rough consensus and working code). There were no "build on this and we'll guarantee it will continue to work" agreement between authors and implementers of the web. XSLT 1.0, as painful as it is, is part of that agreement.
    - akerl_ 11mo ago
      I think you’re pretty off-base about how web standards work and how much of an “agreement” they constitute. Flash doesn’t have an RFC because it was a commercial design by Adobe, not because it wasn’t a defined spec that was supported by browsers. Meanwhile SSLv2 and v3 and FTP and gopher have RFCs and have been removed. Making an RFC about a technology is not a commitment of any kind to support it for any length of time. You’ve conjured a mystique around historical browser ideology that doesn’t exist, and that’s why what you’re seeing today that feel at odds with that fantasy.