3 ms·

> If someone else did something bad in the past [...] Earlier you mentioned "far past", but this stuff is fairly recent: Firefox 2 - October 24, 2006 Firefox

by ahoge 13y ago

> If someone else did something bad in the past [...] Earlier you mentioned "far past", but this stuff is fairly recent: Firefox 2 - October 24, 2006 Firefox 3 - June 17, 2008 Firefox 22 - June 25, 2013 > while it's very possible some were released before being standardized Nothing of this is in ES5.1. > they are all being standardized now Yes, just like Dart. > For example, WebGL was designed through a standards process, and it is great. No, that's not how it happened. [1] Experiment by Mozilla - 2006 Implementations by Mozilla and Opera - 2007 WebGL Working Group - 2009 1.0 spec - 2011 And all of this is based on Canvas which is something Apple made up. Anyhow, you seem to think that this kind of thing is a problem. It's not. This is how the web works. This is how progress is made. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebGL#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebGL#History

azakai 13y ago
I consider 2008 to be far past :) Regarding Firefox 22, that is recent, but I don't see a link showing it shipped something nonstandard and that was not being standardized? In fact I showed a link for the standardization process for arrows? Revision history for that page seems to show that it predates Firefox 22. > Nothing of this is in ES5.1. They are in ES6, which is being standardized, has interest from multiple vendors, is heavily discussed by multiple vendors, and has implementations by multiple vendors. I never said everyone should wait until a standard is 100% final. Just like the Blink principles say, it can be perfectly valid to ship something that is being standardized, so long as there is interest from multiple vendors and work on standardization. The risk is of one vendor shipping something entirely unilaterally, with no respect for any standards process. That's not what happened with arrows. > > they are all being standardized now > Yes, just like Dart. AFAIK no other vendor has expressed any interest in Dart. The opposite in fact, Apple opposed including bindings to WebKit that would allow additional languages to JS. Please correct me if I am wrong? > Anyhow, you seem to think that this kind of thing is a problem. It's not. This is how the web works. This is how progress is made. I disagree. Why then do you think Google wrote the Blink principles about avoiding shipping something before it is standardized or has multiple vendor interest? Why did Google stop shipping vendor-specific WebGL extensions? In both cases Google is showing what most vendors consider proper behavior today, and I think Google is doing the right thing. Do you think Google is wrong in both cases?

by ahoge 13y ago

azakai 13y ago

I consider 2008 to be far past :) Regarding Firefox 22, that is recent, but I don't see a link showing it shipped something nonstandard and that was not being standardized? In fact I showed a link for the standardization process for arrows? Revision history for that page seems to show that it predates Firefox 22. > Nothing of this is in ES5.1. They are in ES6, which is being standardized, has interest from multiple vendors, is heavily discussed by multiple vendors, and has implementations by multiple vendors. I never said everyone should wait until a standard is 100% final. Just like the Blink principles say, it can be perfectly valid to ship something that is being standardized, so long as there is interest from multiple vendors and work on standardization. The risk is of one vendor shipping something entirely unilaterally, with no respect for any standards process. That's not what happened with arrows. > > they are all being standardized now > Yes, just like Dart. AFAIK no other vendor has expressed any interest in Dart. The opposite in fact, Apple opposed including bindings to WebKit that would allow additional languages to JS. Please correct me if I am wrong? > Anyhow, you seem to think that this kind of thing is a problem. It's not. This is how the web works. This is how progress is made. I disagree. Why then do you think Google wrote the Blink principles about avoiding shipping something before it is standardized or has multiple vendor interest? Why did Google stop shipping vendor-specific WebGL extensions? In both cases Google is showing what most vendors consider proper behavior today, and I think Google is doing the right thing. Do you think Google is wrong in both cases?