I am not sure I follow. Possibly there is some previous discussion I've missed, but what arena are we talking about?
Consensus among vendors, spec maintainers, the blink community or Blink API Owners?
If it's about how specifications can keep changing after the the initial shipping, I only think that has to be handled on a case by case basis. It's unfortunate that a v1.0 spec is sometimes incompatible than a shipped v0.9 implementation, but it's a risk the first implementer takes and changing into v1.0 needs to be handled as any other modification of the public API surface IMO.
Several of the steps in the shipping process is there to prevent
unexpected surprises post-launch, but sometimes going first means
showing others how not to do and backtracking.
If this was about something else, then this was just a random statement. :)
/Daniel
/Daniel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-api-owners-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-api-owners-d...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/CALjsk146k%2BhKrynRYo%2ByGq-WogPZSdARFsv4fvrPgLC%3DOaVY6w%40mail.gmail.com.
I am not sure I follow. Possibly there is some previous discussion I've missed, but what arena are we talking about?
Consensus among vendors, spec maintainers, the blink community or Blink API Owners?
If it's about how specifications can keep changing after the the initial shipping, I only think that has to be handled on a case by case basis. It's unfortunate that a v1.0 spec is sometimes incompatible than a shipped v0.9 implementation, but it's a risk the first implementer takes and changing into v1.0 needs to be handled as any other modification of the public API surface IMO.
Several of the steps in the shipping process is there to prevent unexpected surprises post-launch, but sometimes going first means showing others how not to do and backtracking.
From the perspective of having to deal with compat fallout for a
less well-tested browser in a former life, I think this is a good
idea.
One example that comes to mind is WebRTC "unified plan" vs "plan
b". I wasn't involved in any of the decision making there, and
probably lack a lot of context on the complexity of switching over
- but my team got to deal with top sites not supporting Firefox
for years, and having to ping folks via back-channels to try to
understand what Chrome's plans were. I think having a public plan
- even if imperfect - would have been useful especially when
communicating with partner sites.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/dd777fb8-b61d-8d3b-5369-833cd1d5635f%40chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/CA%2BN6QZuEzxYddUOfFQFpTw%2B6pEGHYc6vuxPX7wmCLP21EBegeg%40mail.gmail.com.
We talked a bit about this on the API Owners meeting but as I was
rudely kicked before I had finished talking ("Out of memory" so
maybe a Google Meets memory leak?), I'll dump my thoughts here: :)
* Lots written here and suggested is valuable and useful, and good to consider when you design and ship APIs. I want people to at least think about how an API may evolve (or devolve) before putting it in stone.
* I think that it may be ok to ship an API that is hard to extend
or change or unship. There may be other considerations
(performance, ease of use, ...) that makes it something worth
shipping and that takes priority.
* The current Intent process has quite a few form fields to fill, and we have heard or noticed that some are already not fully understood or filled in, and I don't want to add another step if it doesn't add any direct value.
Obviously these three opinion items are not 100% compatible with
each other.
As some people said, this is most valuable when we have negative or no signals from other vendors and web developers so maybe it could be an optional step only relevant/active/shown when that is the case.
/Daniel
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/CAFUtAY9wPj17cgsdqLwK5xZBo4DjEY65%2BHmj7X-VqLc2bWJ7%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-api-owners-discuss+unsub...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/CALjsk146k%2BhKrynRYo%2ByGq-WogPZSdARFsv4fvrPgLC%3DOaVY6w%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-api-owners-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-api-owners-discuss+unsub...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/dd777fb8-b61d-8d3b-5369-833cd1d5635f%40chromium.org.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-api-owners-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-api-owners-discuss+unsub...@chromium.org.