I2S is part of our shipping process. "We will ship X" thus implies that it'll go thru an I2S, and can get rejected at that point. It's fine for people to use looser language in person because they assume they're implying the ordinary process we regularly and consistently go thru.
-
-
I don't think it's fine for Googlers to use looser language. Doing so inherently allows listeners to hear 2 incompatible interpretations, so it's a bad use of language.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I think part of the point of having a consistent and well-followed process is that we get to assume people know we're going to consistently follow the process. Newbies can be forgiven their misinterpretation, of course, but Sam is not one.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Google _obviously_ cares about shipping a number of new features for the web, regardless of whether any other vendors are on board or not. That they might ship with some objection from parts of the Chrome team doesn't seem that far fetched, as long as senior mgmt are on board.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
You keep implying that this is a believable enough scenario that one should be on guard for Googlers accidentally revealing this as their true intention by injudicious word choice. What in our history of the I2S process makes you think this is something reasonable to fear?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Because enough of Google's movements in the browser space seem to be in bad faith.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I reject that assertion, but also, I repeat my question. What makes you assume that when a Chromey says "we plan to ship X", it's reasonable to think that means they're going to ignore I2S process, so much so that you wouldn't even ask if that's what they really meant?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
You can reject that assertion it you want, but that is the level of trust other vendors have in you at this point as far as I can tell; certainly it's a viewpoint that has been voiced enough times around me. You needs to recognise you've lost that trust if you want to regain it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Seems kinda impossible to if things we've consistently done for a long time, like gate shipping behind I2S, are on the table as doubtable! If a rando said something like this, I'd assume they were scaremongering for internet points. That's why I'm assuming you have a reason?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tabatkins @gsnedders and
Pardon my intrusion, but surely there are very obvious examples of Chrome shipping something that wasn't fully baked and causing backwards compatibility issues for everyone else? (Do keep in mind that "only Chrome is supported" is increasing in prevalence these days.)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Shadow DOM v0, right?
-
-
Replying to @pcwalton @tabatkins and
(I don't know enough to know what they are, only that they exist.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GPHemsley @pcwalton and
Do we want to start pointing out similar examples of this in other browsers too? Seems unfair for only one of us to have all the fun.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.