Yes, you post this every time as if that absolves Chrome, or you, of shipping "standards" against objections from both Mozilla and Apple, or before consensus on APIs and capabilities, or before even having a spec that others can implement.
To quote your article: "every vendor always ships "whatever it wants."
Indeed, and Chrome ships constantly, recklessly and with hardly a lip service to the standards process.
Your article does have its funny moments. "Blink's rigorous launch process frequently prevents unvalidated designs from shipping". Lol. Lmao even.
You, more than most other people, should know that once something is shipped, it stays in the platform forever, and it's very hard to change something that is already shipped. Yet not only Chrome ships features all the time, its team gleefully announced those features as fait accompli standards on web.dev, and then developers including you demand that other browsers implement these features.
Chrome ships dozens of APIs that it then advertises as fait accompli standards. Often when there's even no consensus on the shape of an API. Or worse (see WebHID which Chrome shipped literally without an actionable spec).
Did Safari ship requestStorageAccess in the same manner? If yes, yes it was wrong. It's not a trick question though you somehow think it is.
Again, and it's insane that I have to explain it to you, of all people: once something is shipped in the browser, it stays there forever because people end up using and depending on that feature. And for the past decade that is exponentially "whatever Chrome ships".
It's funny how you lament that Safari is somehow sabotaging standards processes when your former employer literally shits on the whole standards processes and just ships whatever it desires. Oh wait, in your mind it's good because "Blink has a rigorous process" (aka ship whatever our internal company turf wars need right now) and "Blink is a democratic process" (aka whatever Google decides ends up in the browser).
> In the world you want, how should leadership in designs manifest when there isn't consensus?
Ah yes. "Leadership". Justin Fangnani said it was "courage" when they shipped Constructible Stylesheets with no consensus on APIs and a trivially reproducible race condition in the spec just because Google-developed lit needed it. And then tried to gaslight everyone who didn't agree.
It's not leadership. It's a monopoly (or near-monopoly) browser doing whatever the hell it wants with utter disregard to anything or anyone.
Edit
> Should nothing ship? And who does that help?
Literally everyone. Many, many, many people have pointed it out on many occasions that just adding hundreds of new APIs per year to the platform doesn't much benefit the platform. Often you end up with badly designed badly specced APIs that need dozens of workarounds to fix while making the platform itself incomprehensibly complex.
In your world "leadership" somehow means "ship whatever whenever at neck breaking pace ä, who cares about consequences".
To quote Steve Jobs (whom you probably hate): "It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully... Innovation is saying no to 1,000 things.".
Chrome's mottos seems to be "we don't take no for an answer, ship it"
It's not insane that you have to explain it to me, because your premise is _wrong_. Go look at the founding documents for web SDOs. Voluntary adoption is foundational to the entire effort, and as I keep pointing out, Apple is the only party that has undermined it:
> It's not insane that you have to explain it to me, because your premise is _wrong_.
Are you saying that "if something is shipped in a browser (especially dominant one like Chrome), it will be there, and people will end up dependent on it, and it will be hard to change or remove" is the wrong premise?
> I keep pointing out, Apple is the only party that has undermined it:
I've updated my reply, addressing this claim, too.
"Apple is the only one that undermined the process", but Chrome is blameless because "Blin's process is rigorous and without fail, and everyone ships anything they want anyway"?
> Voluntary adoption is foundational to the entire effort
Yes, and Google abuses this by shipping whatever it wants at neck-breaking pace regardless of any possible differing view.
Basically you're literally saying "because adoption is voluntary Chrome has the right to do whatever it wants. However, no one else is allowed to do whatever they want (e.g. not adopting Chrome-only non-standards) because whatever Chrome ships is law".
Edit: note how you call standards that Chrome ships "fundamental web standards that Safari must implement because it just must". But Chrome is fully absolved of any blame.
Late edit: This quote is absolutely hilarious: "Apple alone must be on the hook to implement any and every
web platform feature shipped by any and every other engine. "
So much for "voluntary". "Whatever Chrome ships is law".
