Twitter | Search | |
Jen Simmons Jun 12
I believe new HTML elements should go through a standards process, be debated by multiple parties (not one), be useful to most websites (pave the cowpaths), and be written in language that makes sense for HTML, especially for folks who don’t speak English well. So no on this.
Reply Retweet Like
Jen Simmons Jun 12
Replying to @jensimmons
Think of all the many HTML elements that were considered and rejected over the years — and we are supposed to be on-board with TOAST? Because a couple guys at Google decided they want it. And they can. So no to <footnote> <author> <publication-date> But yes to <toast> ???
Reply Retweet Like
Dave Cramer
Timeline: initial commit to personal repo: May 24 comment by an editor of WHATWG HTML (also a Google employee): May 28 Intent to implement email: June 12 Request for TAG review: June 12 First mention in WICG: June 12
Reply Retweet Like More
Chris Lilley Jun 12
Replying to @dauwhe @jensimmons
OH "wait this is a real thing? I thought this was satire" No, unfortunately. Not satire.
Reply Retweet Like
Jen Simmons Jun 12
Replying to @svgeesus @dauwhe
Not satire at all. Seems to be the new world with two browser implementations. Where one has most of the market share, so therefore most of the power. And apparently little belief in the standards process that we’d painstakingly grown out of the ashes of the browser wars.
Reply Retweet Like
Domenic Denicola Jun 12
Replying to @dauwhe @jensimmons
Heya, I'm unclear what's wrong with this process. Would you rather we not have publicized the repo until also doing the TAG review/WICG thread? Or would you like more un-publicized development before bringing the work to standards venues?
Reply Retweet Like
Rick Byers Jun 12
Replying to @dauwhe @jensimmons
What do you find problematic in this timeline? This is all about STARTING open discussion and experimentation. "Intent to ship" tends to comem MUCH later.
Reply Retweet Like
Dave Cramer Jun 12
Replying to @domenic @jensimmons
I'm looking at the intent to implement template: "You should have at least an explainer in hand and have discussed the API on a public forum with other browser vendors or standards bodies before sending an intent to implement." It appears that discussion hasn't happened yet?
Reply Retweet Like
Dave Cramer Jun 12
Replying to @domenic @jensimmons
Nothing on WICG until today, nothing in HTML repo.
Reply Retweet Like
Dave Cramer Jun 12
Replying to @RickByers @jensimmons
From Google's email template: "You should have at least an explainer in hand and have discussed the API on a public forum with other browser vendors or standards bodies before sending an intent to implement."
Reply Retweet Like
Ariel Burone 🇦🇷 Jun 12
They are shipping without even talking to anyone else. Once shipped out its gets ossificed.
Reply Retweet Like
Dave Cramer Jun 12
To be fair, they are not shipping.
Reply Retweet Like
Domenic Denicola Jun 12
Replying to @dauwhe @jensimmons
Hmm, I see, that's fair. We can delay sending the intent until there's been more discussion. I think that's a net reduction in transparency; intents make it clear what code is landing, and spark really good discussion, as we've seen with these two. But you're reading it right.
Reply Retweet Like
Dave Cramer Jun 12
Replying to @domenic @jensimmons
switch does seem to be based on discussion in HTML (#4180), which is good. toast feels more out of the blue.
Reply Retweet Like
Chris Wilson Jun 13
Yellow?!?!? RED!!!!
Reply Retweet Like
Dave Cramer Jun 13
Red is faster. It is known.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Shumway ⏱ Loop Thesis Jun 13
Replying to @RickByers @smfr and 2 others
But whatever. The point I'm getting at is that when developers tell you to slow down, we're not being killjoys. We just recognize that the web is permanent, and we feel like Google is less worried about that fact than we are.
Reply Retweet Like
Jen Simmons Jun 13
. explains beautifully why the rate of change to different layers of the web matters:
Reply Retweet Like