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
What do you find problematic in this timeline? This is all about STARTING open discussion and experimentation. "Intent to ship" tends to comem MUCH later. https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features …
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @RickByers @jensimmons
From Google's email template: "You should have at least an explainer in hand and have discussed the API on a public forum with other browser vendors or standards bodies before sending an intent to implement."
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @dauwhe @jensimmons
Ah, we got feedback (in part from CSSWG and W3C TAG) that it felt like we weren't doing enough to broadcast new ideas at the very start when they were most malleable, so we moved I2I step up to the very start. The template needs updating to match the link I shared.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Perhaps it should be called an “intent to experiment” rather than implement? Implementing is a fairly overloaded standards term (the “inviting implementations” step at the W3C is much farther along)
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @alanstearns @RickByers and
Yeah..I keep watching and thinking that the overloaded terminology is really hurting this discussion badly because perception and reality are mismatched here
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @briankardell @alanstearns and
Note that Mozilla uses the same terminology, also encourages early "intent to implement" and says decision making is not blocked on getting feedback from other engines (which I applaud - priorities can legitimately be different and that's OK): https://wiki.mozilla.org/ExposureGuidelines …
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @RickByers @alanstearns and
I think a tough thing about this is that in the context of the org (either), these words make total sense. In a context of people who don't work for the org, this sounds different than it is. I'm not suggesting that is the only issue here, but it really seems to impact the rest
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @briankardell @RickByers and
It's also hard to change the words for the org, I would imagine, in any significant way. Would it be plausible to append something to the names more easily that people could relate to? Intent "To Implement (Stage 0)" or something (or maybe it is 1?)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Bikeshedding welcome:https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-api-owners-discuss/VOXZLnylSWY …
-
-
-
- 3 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.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.