Consensus doesn’t mean unanimity, but it has to mean more than “what Google thinks is a good idea”. Google has some great engineers, but they’re not always right, and can’t possibly take everyone else’s needs and views into account in isolation.
-
-
To enable that ideal scenario, Blink invests massively in compat, tests, OT infra, process, etc. One concern now is that we've done a huge amount to get compat for existing features but are pulling away on investment levels for new work, endangering competitiveness.
-
Investment levels predict outcomes. Multiple impls require multiples on base impl investment + fixed compat (tests, standards) overhead. Our proprietary competition doesn't bear these costs. OSS is one cost-sharing approach; we can imagine others.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
That's still how W3C process works. But also, RFC interop was *never* a gate to shipping product in IETF land, and that's what some seem to be demanding.
- 2 more replies
-
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.
