Open Standards aren't about posting a publicly-readable spec. They're about getting critiques and and consensus from an open community of stakeholders (including multiple implementers).https://twitter.com/AmeliasBrain/status/1126235639270088704 …
-
-
Replying to @fantasai
Yep. And shipping experimental implementations can be part of that. But when you tell devs about this cool new feature, you need to emphasize that this is a *proposal*. That you want *feedback* because it may *change*. Which doesn't fit well into big corporate announce-a-thons.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @AmeliasBrain @fantasai
Announce-a-thons aside, we are consistently *begging* for more valuable and timely feedback from other vendors. If you have concrete examples of incubation work not being done in the open and requesting for feedback, I'd love to hear them
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @matthewcp @yoavweiss and
This is literally begging for developer feedback via Origin Trials and WICG open process: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!searchin/blink-dev/Isinputpending/blink-dev/ItkbDBevOrs …
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @yoavweiss and
There's a GitHub linked above with some feedback but little response. This is also shifting the goalpost, the *design* of the API doesn't appear to have been done in the open (again, GitHub with little comments), it was done in private meetings between FB and Google.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @matthewcp @yoavweiss and
There is no immaculate conception for web APIs. The explainer is a request for collaboration and you can shape the future of the API by engaging on GH or OT. What is objectionable about that?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @yoavweiss and
The objectionable part is that collaboration isn't happening on GH.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthewcp @yoavweiss and
Yes it is! Or rather, once the sketch was published, GH is where the action is.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @matthewcp and
We can never have a functioning platform if, when people are asking around for design input and collaboration, they are told that they're insincere in their desire to work with others because they didn't have their initial idea in the designated (small) idea-having room!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
@n8Schloss and @tdresser really do want to work with folks who have ideas about how to solve this problem, even if it's a totally different design. They're honestly, diligently looking to collaborate. Presuming bad faith gets us nowhere.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @matthewcp and
Absolutely happy to chat about alternative solutions to this set of problems. You're also welcome to participate in the web performance working group calls, where most of the collaboration around this has taken place. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/10dz_7QM5XCNsGeI63R864lF9gFqlqQD37B4q8Q46LMM/ …).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @yoavweiss and
I look forward to when that collaboration can begin.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.