4 ms·

Google is also involved in W3C and do I really need to bring up the topics API as Google attempting to use their position to push their agenda as well? We rea

by nerdjon 7mo ago

Google is also involved in W3C and do I really need to bring up the topics API as Google attempting to use their position to push their agenda as well? We really need to stop putting google on a pedestal as if they are truelly on the side of an open web, like every company they are looking out for their own interests. Which is fine, they are allowed to do this. That doesn't change that many of these are in fact not a standard according to W3C and should not be implemented in any browser until it is. A discussion about why it may not be standard is worth it, but that is also a very important distinction that is not made on this page. Right now it is framing it as google supports a standard that the other's (including Firefox) do not. Just because Google does something it doesn't mean the rest of the industry should follow. If we did that in IE days we would still have ActiveX

rejhgadellaa 7mo ago
> many of these are in fact not a standard according to W3C and should not be implemented in any browser until it is. That's not exactly how standards work. A browser (or anyone) comes up with a spec, a browser can ship it (to test the waters in an origin-trial, to gain traction if they believe in it), and the standard (often) comes after the fact: "Working Groups don't gate what browsers ship, nor do they define what's useful or worthy. [...] In practice, they are thoughtful historians of recent design expeditions, critiquing, tweaking, then spreading the good news of proposals that already work through Web Standards ratified years after features first ship, serving to licence designs liberally to increase their spread." https://infrequently.org/2025/09/standards-and-the-fall-of-iamus/ https://infrequently.org/2025/09/standards-and-the-fall-of-i...
- troupo 7mo ago
  > A browser (or anyone) comes up with a spec, a browser can ship it (to test the waters in an origin-trial, to gain traction if they believe in it), and the standard (often) comes after the fact: 1. Google often doesn't bother even with a spec. Or it creates a semblance of a spec, throws it up on a googler's Github account, ships it and advertises it as "emergin standard" on web.dev I mean, the status of many (if not most) of the APIs that these sites push are literally "napkin scribble, not on any standards track". 2. Google pushes a lot of APIs quickly into production even if there's a very explicit open objection from other browser vendors (any objections are routinely ignored: from general objections to the shape of APIs to whether it can even be implemented outside Chrome). 3. I wouldn't really quote Alex Russel on anything related to standards, as he is responsible (directly or indirectly) for quite a few of those because of his work on Web Components. E.g. Constructable Stylesheets were shipped in Chrome because Google's own lit project needed them. They shipped it in production when the design contained a trivially triggered race condition, it was called out, and Google completely ignored it because "users want it" or something. 4. Browser vendors quite literally agreed not push incompatible only-exists-in-one-browser shit after the browser wars. The whole standards process is designed to minimize this. Well, Chrome is the dominant browser, so of course they shit all over the process, and quite a few people cheer them for that. Internet Explorer in the 2000s: shits out a bunch of own non-standard crap, people boo them Chrome in the 2010s-2020s: shits out a bunch of own non-standard crap, people cheer and blame other browsers for not implementing this crap because... Google is "the champion of open web" or some such bullshit.
  - rejhgadellaa 7mo ago
    > Google often doesn't bother even with a spec. I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be right. They have a process: https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/ https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/ > I wouldn't really quote Alex Russel on anything related to standards I disagree :) ...but it's getting late here, have to shut down :)
    - troupo 7mo ago
      > I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be right. They have a process: Yes, they do. It's their process, and their timelines. Many features on the page we're discussing are literally "drew on a napkin, not part of any standards process at all, shipped in Chrome"
  - leptons 7mo ago
    1. That's just your skewed take. 2. That's just your skewed take. 3. So what, bugs can be fixed. It's nowhere near as abusive as what Apple does by forcing Safari on every iOS browser. 4. You think the "browser wars" are over? Apple's actions clearly indicate the war is on, and they've selected the nuclear option of forbidding any other browser on their platform. >Internet Explorer in the 2000s: shits out a bunch of own non-standard crap, people boo them Did people "boo" XMLHTTPRequest? Because it actually revolutionized the web, and people cheered it.
    - troupo 7mo ago
      > That's just your skewed take. When you deliberately ignore what Google is doing, every view that is not praising Google's take over of the web is skewed. > So what, bugs can be fixed. No. Not on the web they can't. Once it's shipped, people depend on the functionality. That is why we're stuck with so many crappy unfixable APIs in the platform. > Did people "boo" XMLHTTPRequest? Because it actually revolutionized the web, and people cheered it. And yet, they didn't cheer ActiveX. For some reason you assume that every single API Google pushes out is XHR, and not ActiveX
      - 7mo ago
leptons 7mo ago
>Google is also involved in W3C and do I really need to bring up the topics API as Google attempting to use their position to push their agenda as well? How is Web Bluetooth an evil agenda of Google?? It's making web browsers more capable. It's not some evil conspiracy to enrich Google. If Apple wants to let the W3C move forward in making it a standard, then all browsers would benefit, and all users that would like to use a bluetooth enabled web-app would benefit. The only one that benefits from not allowing it to become a standard is Apple, because they get to force developers to make a native app, where Apple can extract a % of sales through the app. >Just because Google does something it doesn't mean the rest of the industry should follow. If we did that in IE days we would still have ActiveX IE was the first to implement XMLHTTPRequest. It changed the web fundamentally, and was the basis for "web 2.0". Everyone was glad that they created it, standards or not when it was first implemented. If we didn't have browser manufacturers pushing the limits, we'd be stuck with "web 1.0" and browsers that did nothing interesting outside of loading animated gifs of dancing babyies.
- nerdjon 7mo ago
  > How is Web Bluetooth an evil agenda of Google?? Never said it was, notice how in the thing you quoted I said "Topics API"? That is extremely evil and was only introduced to benefit a single company, Google. I never made a claim that every single thing on this list that safari does not support is a negative. > IE was the first to implement XMLHTTPRequest. It changed the web fundamentally, and was the basis for "web 2.0". Fantastic, that is an example of things working as they are supposed to work. However IE also introduced things that were not made standard just as equally we celebrated that those things failed. > If we didn't have browser manufacturers pushing the limits, we'd be stuck with "web 1.0" and browsers that did nothing interesting outside of loading animated gifs of dancing babyies. Obviously that is true or the companies would not be involved in W3C. But that does not mean that every idea they introduce is necessary in a browser and deserves to be a standard feature. Google alone cannot and should dictate a standard, even though apparently we are fine with them attempting to do just that. If everyone is in agreement instead of it benefiting a single company. > The only one that benefits from not allowing it to become a standard is Apple I would like to point out, once again. That this feature is also not available on Firefox for Android or Desktop. Your argument does not support why Mozilla has not implemented this feature. Which again, makes the "Apple bad" spin on this not as cut and dry.

by nerdjon 7mo ago

rejhgadellaa 7mo ago

> many of these are in fact not a standard according to W3C and should not be implemented in any browser until it is. That's not exactly how standards work. A browser (or anyone) comes up with a spec, a browser can ship it (to test the waters in an origin-trial, to gain traction if they believe in it), and the standard (often) comes after the fact: "Working Groups don't gate what browsers ship, nor do they define what's useful or worthy. [...] In practice, they are thoughtful historians of recent design expeditions, critiquing, tweaking, then spreading the good news of proposals that already work through Web Standards ratified years after features first ship, serving to licence designs liberally to increase their spread." https://infrequently.org/2025/09/standards-and-the-fall-of-iamus/ https://infrequently.org/2025/09/standards-and-the-fall-of-i...

troupo 7mo ago
> A browser (or anyone) comes up with a spec, a browser can ship it (to test the waters in an origin-trial, to gain traction if they believe in it), and the standard (often) comes after the fact: 1. Google often doesn't bother even with a spec. Or it creates a semblance of a spec, throws it up on a googler's Github account, ships it and advertises it as "emergin standard" on web.dev I mean, the status of many (if not most) of the APIs that these sites push are literally "napkin scribble, not on any standards track". 2. Google pushes a lot of APIs quickly into production even if there's a very explicit open objection from other browser vendors (any objections are routinely ignored: from general objections to the shape of APIs to whether it can even be implemented outside Chrome). 3. I wouldn't really quote Alex Russel on anything related to standards, as he is responsible (directly or indirectly) for quite a few of those because of his work on Web Components. E.g. Constructable Stylesheets were shipped in Chrome because Google's own lit project needed them. They shipped it in production when the design contained a trivially triggered race condition, it was called out, and Google completely ignored it because "users want it" or something. 4. Browser vendors quite literally agreed not push incompatible only-exists-in-one-browser shit after the browser wars. The whole standards process is designed to minimize this. Well, Chrome is the dominant browser, so of course they shit all over the process, and quite a few people cheer them for that. Internet Explorer in the 2000s: shits out a bunch of own non-standard crap, people boo them Chrome in the 2010s-2020s: shits out a bunch of own non-standard crap, people cheer and blame other browsers for not implementing this crap because... Google is "the champion of open web" or some such bullshit.
- rejhgadellaa 7mo ago
  > Google often doesn't bother even with a spec. I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be right. They have a process: https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/ https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/ > I wouldn't really quote Alex Russel on anything related to standards I disagree :) ...but it's getting late here, have to shut down :)
  - troupo 7mo ago
    > I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be right. They have a process: Yes, they do. It's their process, and their timelines. Many features on the page we're discussing are literally "drew on a napkin, not part of any standards process at all, shipped in Chrome"
- leptons 7mo ago
  1. That's just your skewed take. 2. That's just your skewed take. 3. So what, bugs can be fixed. It's nowhere near as abusive as what Apple does by forcing Safari on every iOS browser. 4. You think the "browser wars" are over? Apple's actions clearly indicate the war is on, and they've selected the nuclear option of forbidding any other browser on their platform. >Internet Explorer in the 2000s: shits out a bunch of own non-standard crap, people boo them Did people "boo" XMLHTTPRequest? Because it actually revolutionized the web, and people cheered it.
  - troupo 7mo ago
    > That's just your skewed take. When you deliberately ignore what Google is doing, every view that is not praising Google's take over of the web is skewed. > So what, bugs can be fixed. No. Not on the web they can't. Once it's shipped, people depend on the functionality. That is why we're stuck with so many crappy unfixable APIs in the platform. > Did people "boo" XMLHTTPRequest? Because it actually revolutionized the web, and people cheered it. And yet, they didn't cheer ActiveX. For some reason you assume that every single API Google pushes out is XHR, and not ActiveX
    - 7mo ago

leptons 7mo ago

>Google is also involved in W3C and do I really need to bring up the topics API as Google attempting to use their position to push their agenda as well? How is Web Bluetooth an evil agenda of Google?? It's making web browsers more capable. It's not some evil conspiracy to enrich Google. If Apple wants to let the W3C move forward in making it a standard, then all browsers would benefit, and all users that would like to use a bluetooth enabled web-app would benefit. The only one that benefits from not allowing it to become a standard is Apple, because they get to force developers to make a native app, where Apple can extract a % of sales through the app. >Just because Google does something it doesn't mean the rest of the industry should follow. If we did that in IE days we would still have ActiveX IE was the first to implement XMLHTTPRequest. It changed the web fundamentally, and was the basis for "web 2.0". Everyone was glad that they created it, standards or not when it was first implemented. If we didn't have browser manufacturers pushing the limits, we'd be stuck with "web 1.0" and browsers that did nothing interesting outside of loading animated gifs of dancing babyies.

nerdjon 7mo ago
> How is Web Bluetooth an evil agenda of Google?? Never said it was, notice how in the thing you quoted I said "Topics API"? That is extremely evil and was only introduced to benefit a single company, Google. I never made a claim that every single thing on this list that safari does not support is a negative. > IE was the first to implement XMLHTTPRequest. It changed the web fundamentally, and was the basis for "web 2.0". Fantastic, that is an example of things working as they are supposed to work. However IE also introduced things that were not made standard just as equally we celebrated that those things failed. > If we didn't have browser manufacturers pushing the limits, we'd be stuck with "web 1.0" and browsers that did nothing interesting outside of loading animated gifs of dancing babyies. Obviously that is true or the companies would not be involved in W3C. But that does not mean that every idea they introduce is necessary in a browser and deserves to be a standard feature. Google alone cannot and should dictate a standard, even though apparently we are fine with them attempting to do just that. If everyone is in agreement instead of it benefiting a single company. > The only one that benefits from not allowing it to become a standard is Apple I would like to point out, once again. That this feature is also not available on Firefox for Android or Desktop. Your argument does not support why Mozilla has not implemented this feature. Which again, makes the "Apple bad" spin on this not as cut and dry.