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.
-
-
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.1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
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 -
Replying to @slightlylate @bgalbs and
Some features are super low risk -- e.g., places where we're playing catch-up with other engines. For those features, there's a form of our process called "Intent to Implement and Ship". If your situation is simple, it's easy-ish.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
If, on the other hand, you're leading on a new feature for the web...hoooooby, does the bar get high. There are separate phases for implementation, experimentation, and shipping, and the OWNERS (myself included) interrogate the teams, looking to make sure they've got a good case
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @bgalbs and
...after all, anything we ship to Stable out from behind a flag is something we're stuck with ~forever. So our process focuses heavily on gathering evidence that lets us judge 2 things: * does this feature solve an important problem? * does it solve it well?
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @bgalbs and
Turns out, Browser engineers usually aren't competent to answer either of those questions! So we require teams to seek external feedback and review, both from the
@w3ctag and from developers.1 reply 1 retweet 1 like - 7 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.