Web developers,
I have a question for you. Imagine an idea for a new web technology is proposed. But at least of the browser makers formally objects because of privacy concerns or other reasons. They say "No, we object to this proposal. We will never ship this. Let’s redesign it without these problems." But the other browser disagrees & ships anyway.
Should that technology be considered A Web Standard — when 1 or 2 browsers implement & ship, while 1 or 2 browsers Formally Object and say no?
- Yes, that’s still a web standard (8%, 2 votes)
- No, there’s no consensus (91%, 21 votes)
Curious Carrot
in reply to Jen Simmons • • •There are the web standards and then there are browser engines.
The web standards should be the guidelines for any browser to produce a tool that respects the users. If some browser-owning companies dislike the web standards, they should be free to produce a tool that doesn't meet the requirements.
The users are also free to choose the browsers that best suit their interests.
Steve Barnes
in reply to Curious Carrot • • •@curious_carrot –
That all makes sense to me.
So, what would be your answer to the original question?
Curious Carrot
in reply to Steve Barnes • • •@Starfia
No.
My answer to the question is "no".
Curious Carrot
in reply to Curious Carrot • • •Open Web Advocacy
in reply to Jen Simmons • • •1. Comparative privacy compared to the native app ecosystem of the proposing vendor should also be considered
2. Needs to be browser vendors, not browser engine vendors (too few engines, vested interests)
3. Competition needs to be the primary driver, individual vendors shouldn’t be able to block functionality in other browsers (I.e. browser engine bans, mandates)
4. Privacy needs to balanced with utility, and singularly focused on what’s better for the user
Open Web Advocacy
in reply to Open Web Advocacy • • •Open Web Advocacy
in reply to Open Web Advocacy • • •Jen Simmons
in reply to Jen Simmons • • •Next, should that technology — that has a proposal at a standards venue, and is starting to ship in browsers… but also has a formal objection to that technology on the record from 1 or 2 browsers that have made it clear they do not want to ship the technology as described…
Should that feature be listed in Baseline as a feature that browsers are supposed to ship? When there’s a graph of "missing features", should the lack of shipping such a feature be logged as missing?
- Yes, all browsers must ship all features (13%, 34 votes)
- No, and it should not be in Baseline (86%, 215 votes)
249 voters. Poll end: 2 settimane faJohn P. Green
in reply to Jen Simmons • • •Strypey
in reply to John P. Green • • •@johnpgreen
> which side is Mozilla on?
The answer to this question hasn't been relevant since they shipped commissioned Adobe to insert a proprietary DRM module into FireFox.
@jensimmons
Strypey
in reply to Jen Simmons • • •> Should that technology be considered A Web Standard
Unless it's been standardised by W3C or another widely recognised standards body, it's not a standard, web or otherwise.
> Should that feature be listed in Baseline as a feature that browsers are supposed to ship?
See above.
@Julianoe
> Ditching consensus is giving the keys of the "open" web to [insert cartel members here] to decide everything
This. Which is why we have technical standards, produced by vendor-neutral bodies.