I appreciated this measured take on <toast> from @adactio: https://adactio.com/journal/15357
(via @beep)
-
-
It's weird to me that Google is accused of steamrolling standards by being open, while Apple literally ships new features unannounced and without discussion at all like it did with dark mode, and I see no hubbub about that.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @matthewcp @zachleat and
Also ApplePay instead of Payment Request at the time. Force touch events. Touch events back then. Whatever else proprietary behaviour like iframes. Other random vendor features.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @nekrtemplar @matthewcp and
I 100% agree that Apple are the worst at making up proprietary crap behind closed doors. That in no way absolves other browser vendors from being held to account (especially the browser with the largest market share).https://adactio.com/notes/15359
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @adactio @nekrtemplar and
Held accountable for what exactly? I agree that "intent to implement" is poorly named. Is that it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthewcp @adactio and
Hm? I thought the original blog post answered that pretty well.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You do? The post is a commentary on other people's commentaries, it doesn't contain any specifics about what Google has done wrong here or suggestions for what should be done different (except for renaming intent to implement).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthewcp @adactio and
I guess I don’t read “held to account” to mean that some gross violation of web standards impropriety has occurred here. In this instance, there may not be much to hold accountable for—which is what I thought the blog post explained pretty well? It is tagged “miscommunication”
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zachleat @matthewcp and
As Chrome's Web Standards TL, if there *is* a gross violation of process or norms, I'd like to understand it so I can help correct it.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @zachleat and
What I've heard thus far is that "intent to implement" ("I2I") *sounds* very late stage (when, in our process, they aren't). Looking at renaming that. There's also an open discussion about sequencing for posting explainers and I2I, but not resolved yet.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Part of this stems both from our longer (and more deliberative) process than what other vendors use, which isn't well explained as well as our ability and willingness to prototype. We're communicating badly here, so I've taken it on to write something to clarify.
-
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @matthewcp and
Maybe this would be a good place to list resources on how to keep up to date with future communication? Or link to a place that has those resources?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 5 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.