1. 7
  1.  

  2. 2

    Standards being used to bully other vendors:

    What I learned from all of this is that he who controls the tests begins to control the perception. And our game theory was correct: Firefox had to dedicate engineers to fix public test failures. They had to dedicate engineers to write tests so that Microsoft would not control the entire narrative. The opportunity cost of doing so meant they had to be slower at creating new features. However, it turns out that this gamesmanship did not work against Google. While we were focused on Mozilla and their limited engineering resources, Google was choosing to throw as many bodies as necessary at the problem. And they did a really (really, (really)) good job at implementing features, writing tests, and demonstrating standards in their (now forked) engine: Blink (ironically named after a non-standard feature from Netscape Navigator).

    Now, of course, the idea of perhaps not adding so much stuff to HTML5 and the web platform is something nobody involved with the standards bodies seems to be successful with.

    1. 3

      This reminds me of Jim Waldo’s comment about C++ standardization.

      Every extension proposal should be required to be accompanied by a kidney. People would submit only serious proposals, and nobody would submit more than two.

      1. 1

        Indeed, I also wonder how Mozilla got co-opted into WHATWG “Living Standard”.

        1. 1

          Google has a lot of power… hard to fight them on every front