Open Standards aren't about posting a publicly-readable spec. They're about getting critiques and and consensus from an open community of stakeholders (including multiple implementers).
This tweet is unavailable
1
1
25
Announce-a-thons aside, we are consistently *begging* for more valuable and timely feedback from other vendors. If you have concrete examples of incubation work not being done in the open and requesting for feedback, I'd love to hear them
2
4
Maybe there's a misunderstanding here, but "available in Canary behind a flag" != "shipped". It's an early implementation that interested devs can play around with, but is not available to regular users who don't turn on the flag
1
1
3
Specifically for Portals, they are the result of a community initiated proposal: discourse.wicg.io/t/proposal… (by @triblondon). It has been worked on *in the open* ever since github.com/WICG/portals
1
1
That repo has been public for the *last year*. There were 66 issues filed against it, many of them from non-Google/Chrome folks. I'm failing to see how this is an "indirection" and who should've gotten a personal invite to participate in order for that not to be considered one
2
2
Andrew Betts @triblondon
8 May 2019
Replying to @RickByers @AutomatedTester @brianleroux @tobie @w3ctag
To be honest, last time I looked, it seemed like it had been designed to enable the AMP carousel. The carousel is a monopolistic land grab for the web and I want no part of it.
1
Your response here fully justifies my tweet above. If I continue to participate it looks like community engagement. Portals, based on my understanding of how google intends to use them, undermine the open web.
3
2
Replying to @triblondon @yoavweiss @AmeliasBrain @fantasai
For what it's worth, when the TAG looked at Portals, I think our reaction was that (a) it clearly makes some pretty major changes to how origins (and UI and permissions based on them) work on the Web and (b) the explainer and spec we saw weren't clear enough on what... [1/N]

May 9, 2019 · 10:49 PM UTC

1
3
Replying to @davidbaron @triblondon @yoavweiss @AmeliasBrain @fantasai
... what actual changes were being made for us to evaluate them. I guess given that there's an implementation to play with in canary there's at least one concrete answer to questions about behavior. We should probably go back and figure out the list of questions we had. [2/2]
5