presenting these "standards" as fait accompli even if other browser vendors will never ever implement them completely ignoring the realities and needs of the web Safari simply said they are not going to implement the spec in this shape. So they released it in stable, said that "0.8% of pageviews now use this" (reality: only lit-html used it at the time), and refused to hide it back under a flag. However, Google's own lit-html was interested in the spec. Several developers (not only from Mozilla and Safari) pointed this out, and proposed several changes to the spec that would get rid of the problem.
The spec has a trivially reproducible problem. ignoring any and all objections, and favoring own needs onlyĮxample: Constructible Stylesheets. Chrome still released it, and updated the "standard" two months after it was already in the wild. The "standard" was so badly written that Mozilla engineers couldn't understand it. What's not a good way is:Įxample: Mozilla was asked for position on WebHID three months before Chrome released in stable.
#DB BROWSER FOR SQLITE SAFE TRIAL#
Running this as origin trial is a very good way of doing it. > So the way this is done now (with origin trials to collect feedback from developers) is not good enough? What exactly is your definition of experimentation?
I didn't link to an article on removing alert just for the fun of it. It means that people are already using this functionality, and depend on it. My assumption is that a very small percentage of developers participate in it.
0 kommentar(er)
