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.
-
-
In those cases, we'd hope other engine projects would send their proposals to similar review (e.g., via the TAG). But they don't
A part of the disconnect is that we're more interested in developer feedback and sentiment than formal WG approval. WG's aren't fitness functions. -
Some WG's exhibit a really weird survivorship bias: they were themselves formed from successful features that were initially designed and launched *outside* the formal process, but now expect everyone to do all new work in an environment they didn't start in...which is



- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
why is it "a problem" for proposed features to be floated first in a WG? Seems like that's a logical venue.
-
The posts I linked above discuss why that's often not a good idea.
End of conversation
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.