It blew up because many people don't want the web to be beholden to tech debt introduced by questionable past decisions.
-
-
-
I think that's just too abstract of a point, and one basically everyone agrees with in some way.
-
There definitely seems to be a disconnect on the perceived expectation that the web should be backward compatible forever. I’m curious who started this thought, because I’ve been in this industry for a while and never felt that entitlement.
-
Browser vendors don't want to break existing content because people will switch browsers (or complain) if things stop working. Most sites aren't maintained (so nobody to feel "entitled"). This seems reasonable to me as a non-vendor.
-
Yes but in this case the site would stop working because of a library doing a nonstandard thing. Browsers shouldn't have to consider that in their calculus of moving the platform forward.
-
The site is doing something that was supported across all browsers in the same way, and they don't want to stop it from working. Standards reflect shipping/shippable reality, so if a vendor doesn't want to break content, it won't be standardized.
-
I also think a desire to avoid breaking content for your users is reasonable.
-
Thankfully this particular issue can be avoided with a simple name change, but it does expose a rift in expectations and I think will prove itself a long-term burden.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
More or less. Also smoosh is fun and makes for a great meme?
-
I don't think everyone following along gets that it's a joke. Between the PR, nobody shooting it down, and the seemingly serious Twitter poll, it's very easy to take away the impression that this was a real possibility based on Twitter and github banter.
-
> seemingly serious Twitter poll Oxymoron detected
-
I think regular people assume that if the editor of the spec asks a real question via a Twitter poll, they did it for some kind of reason. At minimum, it's really hard to unsee the results.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Though the debate on that GH issue was quite civil, no? I actually enjoy these kind of occurrences.
-
The debate was civil enough but extremely unproductive.
-
What would make it productive and still allow people to state their opinion?
-
I think spending more time up front to hash out the available options before coming to a strong opinion about which one is best would have improved the conversation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think it’s also because many were super opposed to patching prototypes back in the day and are “told you so” about this.
-
Good catch, yeah.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This could establish precedence for "how much breakage is acceptable", which is beneficial, right?
-
There's actually a lot of precedent for that (in extremely similar cases even). The main interesting difference here is whether we can find an alternative that's "as good"
-
Oh. Well, now this whole thing seems a bit silly.
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.