3 ms·

> Is Matt (or Google) afraid that other web browsers would block Google properties? No, they're afraid that other web browsers will fail to implement features

> Is Matt (or Google) afraid that other web browsers would block Google properties? No, they're afraid that other web browsers will fail to implement features that Google needs unless Google has a significant say in the standardisation process by means of having a web browser. They'd be at the mercy of other web browsers for those features otherwise.

jacquesm 12y ago
What about all those other companies not being Google, Apple and Microsoft? Do they not get a 'significant say in the standardization process' because they don't have a web browser? And if not why should those who have a web browser get a say? Much less a significant one? The only way this matters is if you extend the capabilities of your browser outside the standards process. So if everybody would follow the standard then that wouldn't be a problem. No more Microsoft sites that only work with IE (remember Active-X/COM objects?) no more Google using features that are only present in Chrome to cripple Google docs on Firefox.
- spindritf 12y ago
  If everybody merely followed the standard and didn't extend their browser, progress and innovation would slow down quite a bit. At the very least, with Chrome Google put some fire under javascript performance and encryption/SPDY.
- vertex-four 12y ago
  The implementers, sad as it is, get the final say on what they implement. Standards organisations can standardise whatever they want, but if the implementers don't want to implement stuff they won't. Hence we don't have XForms and all the rest of XHTML 2.0, nobody's implemented Persona despite that being a standard, etc etc. Google can pressure others to agree to follow a standard by being an implementer, and they do. (There is practically nothing accessible from a general web page on Chrome that isn't defined in a standards document or draft standards document.) We, unfortunately, don't live in a perfect world where web developers can unilaterally force browser implementers to implement standards - Google is a large company that heavily depends on the web, and needs to be able to do that. For the most part, other companies can contribute to Firefox to get that, but Google likely decided the politics and potential bad PR of that ("Google are taking over Firefox") were not worth it for them.

jacquesm 12y ago

What about all those other companies not being Google, Apple and Microsoft? Do they not get a 'significant say in the standardization process' because they don't have a web browser? And if not why should those who have a web browser get a say? Much less a significant one? The only way this matters is if you extend the capabilities of your browser outside the standards process. So if everybody would follow the standard then that wouldn't be a problem. No more Microsoft sites that only work with IE (remember Active-X/COM objects?) no more Google using features that are only present in Chrome to cripple Google docs on Firefox.

spindritf 12y ago
If everybody merely followed the standard and didn't extend their browser, progress and innovation would slow down quite a bit. At the very least, with Chrome Google put some fire under javascript performance and encryption/SPDY.
vertex-four 12y ago
The implementers, sad as it is, get the final say on what they implement. Standards organisations can standardise whatever they want, but if the implementers don't want to implement stuff they won't. Hence we don't have XForms and all the rest of XHTML 2.0, nobody's implemented Persona despite that being a standard, etc etc. Google can pressure others to agree to follow a standard by being an implementer, and they do. (There is practically nothing accessible from a general web page on Chrome that isn't defined in a standards document or draft standards document.) We, unfortunately, don't live in a perfect world where web developers can unilaterally force browser implementers to implement standards - Google is a large company that heavily depends on the web, and needs to be able to do that. For the most part, other companies can contribute to Firefox to get that, but Google likely decided the politics and potential bad PR of that ("Google are taking over Firefox") were not worth it for them.