So how do you even address structural problems when there isn't a consistent structure?
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @w3ctag
there are standards nobody is touching anymore (Speech API) that are sitting there incompatible with everything new.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mikeal
: the plan is to work with folks when they're ready. You can't force change, but can be ready to collaborate & help
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
I'd genuinely like to help but there's not an actual entry point for the structural issues laying between WHATWG and W3C.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mikeal
: use the TAG spec review repo for technical issues you want to raise. We can't fix process, but have earned a hearing w/ most groups
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
so, and I'm just guessing here, but how many people are avoiding such review by authoring in WHATWG?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mikeal
: doesn't work that way. Blink process DGAF where you spec'd (nor does the TAG, functionally)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
last question: how long have you been doing this effectively? which standards made it through this so far?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mikeal
: 3+ years. Web Audio (major changes), permissions (same), SWs, many media APIs, EME, WebCrypto, etc. etc.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
: blink process change only 1.5 years old
-
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate
: also recall that we've precipitated huge changes in agenda and layering; Houdini is a joint CSSWG/TAG effort, e.g.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.