This isn't a problem in standards from ECMA/TC39, at least not that I've seen. But the W3C & WHATWG standards are a mess.
-
-
Replying to @mikeal
There's about a half dozen stream-like things, all incompatible with one another. Only one of these supports back-pressure.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mikeal
There's a push in the W3C to conform to WebIDL, an interface description language that looks terrible and can't entirely be expressed in JS.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mikeal
Audio in the browser: Media elements, Web Audio, and WebRTC MediaStream. All were clearly written by people who didn't speak to each other.
4 replies 3 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @mikeal
At least part of the problem is that two bodies, WHATWG and W3C are writing and forking each others standards.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @mikeal
Both organizations aren't even legal entities: WHATWG is a mailing list and W3C is a cross licensing deal between universities.
4 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @mikeal
So how do you even address structural problems when there isn't a consistent structure?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
: what I'll say abt "consistency" is that big platforms are big. Structure and review critical. Backfilling that (see Promises)
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate
how would we even start to add that to W3C / WHATWG?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
: already done. Blink process requires TAG review. Has had effect of most feature teams reaching out
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.