Post #2494399

2023-12-08 05:22 UTC

@f09fa681@digitalcourage.social Issue #552 of whatwg/html pretty much explains for itself what it means for contributions which don't get "enough implementer interest" in the #WHATWG despite having a significant #webdev grassroots support. This obsession in making sure at least two "implementers" have the feature baked into their codebases is frankly bull and is one of the factors of why we have such a #Google-biased #web. Theoretically it's there so that every feature would be certain that there are players backing and seeing that feature being useful and good for the #openweb, but in reality it has become Google's veto in most cases, with the popular

Replies (1)

@f09fa681@digitalcourage.social 2023-12-08 09:53

@mima@makai.chaotic.ninja @fluepke@chaos.social @eloquence@social.coop Thanks for sharing that example. Yes, it's a pity that the developer feedback has not been factored in there. That being said, Google never truly cared about the rule to have at least two separate implementations (which has most likely been adopted from the IETF). This becomes obvious by looking at https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/. They just force APIs if they so desire by market power, even if those remain in draft status indefinitely. If WHATWG is a catalyst for the Google-biased web due to the "two implementations" rule, then so is the W3C and the IETF and we should look at standardisation bodies in general. But is antagonising them due to that (perhaps misguided) rule going to help the #openweb? 🤷‍♀️ Because I know for a fact that there's a ton of people working in these groups with good intent towards the open web.

Open ##2494400