Or they could compete by merit?
-
-
Replying to @hashseed @robpalmer2 and
Lots of folks seem to accept that engine diversity is *de facto* desirable. It doesn't take much interrogation of this to see the edges. E.g., what if we had a 100 evenly-distributed engines, but half of them never added any new features? Or only features 2/3 of engines have?
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @hashseed and
In that configuration, it only takes 34% of engines adopting that policy to stall all progress. So we should be clear and specific about what we want engine diversity to achieve. Ability to diverge/go-own-way? Perf competition? Feature pace? Ecosystem resilience?
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @hashseed and
I think we've seen pretty clearly that if it weren't for other engines existing (and even with them), Chrome will kind of ignore the W3C and just do whatever the hell it wants. Monopolies are bad for the web. Always.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ChrisFerdinandi @hashseed and
First, I run standards for Chrome, so I can say categorically that we hold ourselves to a process that is the opposite of "do whatever you want". Next, who do you think the W3C *is*? At TPAC 2 weeks ago, Google sent more engineers and PMs than any two other engines *combined*.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @ChrisFerdinandi and
Our process is documented here: https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features … It *doesn't* gate things on the idea that things have to be standards to be worth adding, but it is more careful in every way about adding risky (new) features than any competing project's process -- *which we all do*.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @ChrisFerdinandi and
If nobody leads, we never go forward. Chromium imposes a high structural tax on leadership to ensure community feedback is at the center of the process, and that risks are low. The WebVR/XR saga show this process at work.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @ChrisFerdinandi and
There was consensus in the WG circa '17 that the then-current spec would need to be overhauled and wasn't going to be the thing to standardise. Other vendors shipped it anyway!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @ChrisFerdinandi and
Turned out the group was right. Today's WebXR specs are very different. Chrome prevented "premature compatibility" about a thing which was the wrong design through Origin Trials: https://github.com/GoogleChrome/OriginTrials/blob/gh-pages/developer-guide.md …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @hashseed and
I appreciate the history and all that Google has done here. I don’t like Chrome’s outsized influence on the platform as a corporate sponsored pseudo-monopoly.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Cool. Might perhaps then be more effective to request others invest reasonable amounts (which they *absolutely can*) and, perhaps, stop trolling the folks who are struggling to be careful about leadership in the absence of collaboration created by their lack of investment?
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @hashseed and
I’m not trolling. I’m a big fan of your work, Alex. But pushing the idea that “maybe a monoculture is good” when you work at a massive surveillance capitalism employer is dangerous, irrespective of the great work you personally do.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisFerdinandi @hashseed and
I'm asking the community to honestly interrogate its priors. *Why* was monoculture bad? I can think of many reasons, but until we dispassionately investigate, we get hung up on the politics and can't see the situation clearly enough to change it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 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.