WTFWG
timkadlec.com
WTFWG
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: WTFWG
#2The result of the "Grep the Web" that was requested somewhere in that is available:
Re: WTFWG
#3How many mainstream browser developers were involved in the group working on the PICTURE element? Isn't it a little backwards to have the standards group dictate to the browsers how new features should work? I thought these things were supposed to start with working code.
Re: WTFWG
#4It's human nature for browser makers to value ease of implementation over ease of use. But to basically tell developers to move the discussion elsewhere and then ignore that discussion is not right. There will only be about a half-dozen implementations but potentially millions of uses in the future, so which side should get more consideration?
Re: WTFWG
#5Is the issue here that a worse idea got accepted, or that a better idea got accepted over one that took much longer to develop?
If the proposed idea from this "single Apple employee" is obviously inferior, then that does indeed sound like a problem. But apparently the idea was discussed for a few days. So it doesn't sound like it's conclusively worse.
When it comes to programming -- especially creating the spec for something this fundamental -- then the best idea should win, irrespective of how long that idea took to be born. If you're cheesed because months of discussion and (semi-)consensus was bumped by a better solution that took days to be discussed, then that's not a problem, that sounds like exactly what should happen.
Re: WTFWG
#6How many mainstream browser developers were involved in the group working on the PICTURE element? Isn't it a little backwards to have the standards group dictate to the browsers how new features should work? I thought these things were supposed to start with working code.
Who do you think is in the standards groups? The browser makers. There isn't enough representation from the people who actually will be using these features, and it seems that even when those people can get a word in edgewise it is ignored.
> The developer community did everything asked of them. They followed procedure, they thoroughly discussed the options available. They were careful enough to consider what to do for browsers that wouldn’t support the element—a working polyfill is readily available. Their solution even emulates the existing standardized audio and video elements. Meanwhile an Apple representative writes one email about a new attribute that only partially solves the problem and the 5 days later it’s in the spec.
So yes, it appears that not only does the standards discussion start with working code, it ends with it.
Re: WTFWG
#7Is the issue here that a worse idea got accepted, or that a better idea got accepted over one that took much longer to develop? If the proposed idea from this "single Apple employee" is obviously inferior, then that does indeed sound like a problem. But apparently the idea was discussed for a few days. So it doesn't sound like it's conclusively worse. When it comes to programming -- especially creating the spec for s…
The point of TFA is that there was a long debated solution in the works that got tossed aside in favour of something a vendor representative chucked in.
How can you determine if it's technically superior if you discriminate on the basis of the source of the feature? Choosing between death-by-committee or trusted-auto-approval is not hard.
i.e. the vendors, and not the community of people interested, are in effect (if not necessarily intentionally) dictating the process. The upshot is we'll see features that benefit browser vendors (whether in ease of implementation or insert-conspiratorial-nefarious-Apple-vertical-integration) rather than features that benefit web developers.
Re: WTFWG
#8Short of convincing principal browser developers that your idea is the best way to go, I don't see how individuals not associated with a browser project can have any impact in these decisions. It felt mostly useless when I tried to offer feedback and suggestions as an individual.
Maybe now we know to talk to Ian if we want to get things fixed.
Re: WTFWG
#9The comments are pure gold. From Paul Irish:
Mike Taylor (at Opera) offered this advice, which I think is smart and on point:
“1) don’t get your feelings hurt 2) respond to srcset on WHATWG and list technical objections that solves”
Yes, please have a discussion on this on the list now, after it has been added. Ugh.
Re: WTFWG
#10Is the issue here that a worse idea got accepted, or that a better idea got accepted over one that took much longer to develop? If the proposed idea from this "single Apple employee" is obviously inferior, then that does indeed sound like a problem. But apparently the idea was discussed for a few days. So it doesn't sound like it's conclusively worse. When it comes to programming -- especially creating the spec for s…
The point of TFA is that there was a long debated solution in the works that got tossed aside in favour of something a vendor representative chucked in. How can you determine if it's technically superior if you discriminate on the basis of the source of the feature? Choosing between death-by-committee or trusted-auto-approval is not hard. i.e. the vendors, and not the community of people interested, are in effect (if…
Yes, but the long-debated solution settled on a solution that obviously wasn't very strong, if it can't withhold an external suggestion like this.
Mostly what I get from the article is the sense that people are put off not because of how the Apple proposal was put up for discussion, but that they spent months of their time discussing something, and feel like they got nothing for it. And that rings false to me; either that discussion was useful and helped them identify something superior Apple proposal, or the discussion was a waste of time and resulted in nothing useful, in which case they should just be mad at themselves (or the process).
I don't get the Apple conspiracy angle here. They want something that works better with WebKit? So that means that all of iOS, Android, Chrome and Safari browsers benefit.