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?
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 


-
-
On feedback from other's proposals, Mozilla's positions repo is an interesting way of handling this sort of review flow. We have thought about something similar. Frustrating that Chromium is so far ahead on features that we tend to be the ones pushing most new work = (
-
What I'm trying to question is why having the most new features means you're the farthest ahead. When the web platform was new and not very expressive, maybe, but these days shouldn't development processes focus on security, privacy, performance, consistency over features?
- 4 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.
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.