It seems like the reason #SmooshGate blew up is that someone proposed "smoosh", nobody immediately shut it down, and it turned into a proxy fight over people's pre-existing feelings about the abstract question of "how much breakage is acceptable", right?
-
-
Replying to @wycats
It blew up because many people don't want the web to be beholden to tech debt introduced by questionable past decisions.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @probablyup
I think that's just too abstract of a point, and one basically everyone agrees with in some way.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wycats
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @probablyup
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @wycats
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
-
-
Replying to @wycats @probablyup
I also think a desire to avoid breaking content for your users is reasonable.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes - 1 more reply
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.