On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 8:56 AM Marcos Caceres <marcosc@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On 20 Aug 2021, at 12:11 am, Yoav Weiss <yoavweiss@google.com> wrote:
>
> > Again - this is being used in the wild today to create better
> experiences for bandwidth-constrained users, as well as better analytics.
>
> The utility of the solution is not in dispute. We know that anything we
> put out in the wild will be used by someone to do something useful - that's
> why we specified NetInfo in the first place and put it out there. But that
> doesn't change the fact that the API might be bad for *reasons* (e.g.,
> privacy).
>
> > "Cutting our losses" would mean to regress the web experience for users
> under harsh network-conditions and remove those developers' ability to
> optimize their sites for these scenarios.
>
> That's absolutely not the case at all: no one said that Chromium should
> remove the API.
>
> We can just acknowledge that it's a Chrome(mium) API. That's totally ok...
> standardizing something new (supported by all the browser vendors) that
> developers can transition to should be the goal. That way, we don't break
> existing content, and we get a path forward.
>
> Put differently: just because we have a Chromium-only API shipping right
> now doesn't mean we can't come up with something different that other
> browser vendors can adopt. One doesn't negate the other.
OK, that sounds perfectly reasonable. It also feels extremely similar to
what Thomas is proposing % the spec & interface name. Would renaming those
help from your perspective?