Widespread Chromium doesn’t have to = defeat, my friend. If you distrust Google stewardship of it, inherently forkable! Increasingly large # of co’s with deep Chromium expertise. But regardless, would love to see Moz be a strong part of the web’s future.
-
-
Replying to @bgalbs
true, you can fork it, which is what Microsoft, Blink, etc. are doing. We'll see what ends up happening in the web.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mgonto
Yeah! With the explosion of non-open, non-web Internet-based UI layers, and fresh attempts each year to direct more traffic into these ecosystems, it might be time to focus more on other areas besides investing enormous energy into re-implementing the same stuff in diff. engines.
2 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @bgalbs
the problem for me is that Chromium does a lot of stuff that's specific to them. If they have a draft spec that they love, they just implement it. Most people because it's implemented will use it (instead of fork) and therefore, they push their thoughts in the web.
3 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @mgonto
I dunno man. Are you aware of all the energy that the Chrome team puts into trying to balance velocity with compatibility? Origin Trials, etc.? I think Chrome team does a pretty good job of trying to balance needs of devs w/ compat. and standards inclusion, etc., fwiw.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @bgalbs
I don't know enough honestly. That's my fear from the outside and without deep knowledge
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @mgonto
Read about Origin Trials for one example here: https://github.com/GoogleChrome/OriginTrials/blob/gh-pages/explainer.md …
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Been reading, I don’t think the issue is chrome “leading” the web, but the outward messaging that APIs chrome tests and ships are “new web features” when consensus has not been made. Like Layers, KV storage, CSS modules. So far only chrome features, with no consensus from others
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Maybe a messaging/devrel related problem, as some engineers on blink/chromium are pretty transparent. At least from an outside looking in perspective
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @mhartington @mgonto
Definitely think it’s a PR issue. Many Google teams haven’t yet acclimated to folks assuming ill vs. good intent by default. It’s also a reminder that people hold Google to a higher standard, which though it can be frustrating, should ultimately give Googlers tremendous pride.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes
Hullo! Friendly Standards TL & Blink API OWNER here, can answer questions about our process.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @bgalbs and
CSS modules have been led by our friends at MSFT -- in fact, they're part of a package of module-like-things they've been pushing forward. Initial plan was to start with HTML modules as a replacement for Imports...but in standards conversation, went with less risky types first
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @bgalbs and
They're being driven through our tortuously open process which places a higher set of hurdles in front of features we're out ahead on.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like - 14 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.