Think of all the many HTML elements that were considered and rejected over the years — and we are supposed to be on-board with TOAST? Because a couple guys at Google decided they want it. And they can. So no to <footnote> <author> <publication-date> But yes to <toast> ???
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @jensimmons
Timeline: initial commit to personal repo: May 24 comment by an editor of WHATWG HTML (also a Google employee): May 28 Intent to implement email: June 12 Request for TAG review: June 12 First mention in WICG: June 12
4 replies 9 retweets 42 likes -
Replying to @dauwhe @jensimmons
Heya, I'm unclear what's wrong with this process. Would you rather we not have publicized the repo until also doing the TAG review/WICG thread? Or would you like more un-publicized development before bringing the work to standards venues?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
As is we're trying to get standards bodies (TAG, WICG) involved as soon as we have an explainer that is useful for them to look at. That seems like the right process to me?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I would suggest WICG discussion first, which must include other browser vendors. Intent to implement seems a bit premature if that hasn’t yet happened. TAG review seems VERY premature, as the discussion may prompt changes that should be hashed out first.
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @alanstearns @domenic and
Perhaps a guideline could be waiting AT LEAST until WICG promotes you to one of their repos before getting the TAG involved would be good?
@cwilso1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @alanstearns @dauwhe and
TAG has repeatedly asked us (Chrome, web standards people in general) to involve them as early as possible.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @domenic @alanstearns and
Yes, we welcome early review (is the idea sound etc) and a later, detailed review
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @kennethrohde @domenic and
If TAG policy is pro-early review, how does that intersect with other groups? Should every standards proposal in other WG/CG get an initial TAG review before substantial work goes in? Maybe that's a good policy. But it needs to be clear & consistent. (And it'll be lot of work.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AmeliasBrain @kennethrohde and
Well, ultimately TAG review is voluntary. But TAG encourages early and often, and the Chromium project has implemented a hard stop, where you can't start prototyping an idea in code without first submitting for TAG review. Others could do the same!
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
TAG review, done best, is also an ongoing conversation at multiple points in the evolution of a feature, not a go/no-go decision point.
-
-
Thanks. 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.
