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.
(in case it isn't clear, this is an honest question; we engage in public for more of the process because Google funds our team at a level that's more in line with what a vibrant web needs, while other vendors don't, and being out of line is uncomfortable for us too)
-
-
The net result would likely be more features, shipped faster, but with less rounding-off-of-the-dangerous-parts. That is, we pay a high "get it right" tax, and part of that is the level of early transparency required for standards-track stuff in order to solicit feedback.
-
...and it isn't possible to solicit feedback privately or to a privileged group of insiders without opening oneself to charges of favoritism. So we use public mechanisms, like that blog post. So what about it would you like to see changed?
- 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.