You're right that the Standards process doesn't counterbalance this *on it's own*, but the Blink API OWNERs apply pressure to Blink launches to ensure we're doing our duty towards standards and (more importantly) developer feedback.
-
-
That is, within Chromium, the thing that keeps folks from shipping whatevs is that they have to come through the API OWNERs to get 3 LGTMs to ship. And we're de-facto conservative. But not so conservative that we're happy to idle forever.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
It's the API OWNERs that have pushed all these features to request
@w3ctag review (other browsers don't have this in their process, so it's a crapshoot if they ask for that wide review for features they lead on). And it's the OWNERS that frequently push teams towards OT.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @Rich_Harris and
Sometimes we get things wrong! But as often as not these days, we just can't get feedback from other vendors in a timely way. It's a direct consequence of them starving their platform teams of staff.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But the big question here is this: why are *browser vendors* in charge of web standards, as opposed to a faction within a larger group of stakeholders (a la TC39, though ideally without the same financial commitments) that can advise on implementation pitfalls?
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
I wrote a blog post series on some of this: https://infrequently.org/2018/06/effective-standards-work-part-1-the-lay-of-the-land/ … https://infrequently.org/2018/06/effective-standards-work-part-2-threading-the-needle/ … TL;DR: feature development and standardisation are separate-but-related processes, and the folks who ship the bits take the risks.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @Rich_Harris and
Your blog posts and the threads have the role of standards organizations upside down. SDOs and their working groups should REVIEW proposed design changes, by the widest possible review committee. Ship first process disenfranchises. Review takes time and attention.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @masinter @Rich_Harris and
You presume I have a single step gearing in mind, rather than frantic iteration (including wide review). That's an error not contained in the text.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @masinter and
This misconception is falsified by my role in putting
@w3ctag review in the center of the Blink launch process. You can persuasively argue many faults of my character, but suggesting disbelief in the value of wide review is among them is unlikely to come up aces.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @Rich_Harris and
no character fault was implied, stick to the ideas. It's great that you have some review early in the Blink launch process, but
@w3ctag is of necessity not always representative of the affected community....2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
True! Other wide review groups haven't earned a similar position in the Blink launch process. I'd encourage folks in those bodies to think about why they aren't getting a similar flow of requests, or how they can collaborate with the TAG to integrate with their review flow.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @masinter and
I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that only Blink/Chromium put TAG (or any other review body) squarely in it's launch process. Other engines are fly-by-night AFAICT.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.