Re: [w3c/manifest] Remove beforeinstallprompt and appinstalled events. (#836)

> Should a standard rely on something unreliable (browser's UI) for feature discovery?

I don't know what this means, or who judges "unreliable"? However, the *aim* is for discoverability to be as good as implementers make it, and it's something browser vendors compete on.  

> Should a standard conform to vendors interests or commons interests?

We try to strike a balance. However, the balance is always tipped towards implementers - because if we put stuff into the spec that only one implementer supports, then the W3C Process forces us to remove the feature. Case in point: "beforeinstallprompt". 

> Is it possible to conform to commons interests if vendors write the standard?

That's another good question. We have a few checks and balances in place, including the W3C's need for "wide review". The working group Chair is supposed to operate from a vendor neutral perspective (I'm the Chair, I work for the W3C... though I used to work for Mozilla). I also edit the spec, and don't represent the vendor. Similarly, the other editors are a mix of folks, but we all contribute to different engines.

Further, we have a (newish) PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE that forces us to check that there is consensus (and no objections!) amongst all implementers before we put stuff into the standard. 

> How much does a codebase have to be forked for it to become a separate browser? I'm sure W3C has thought carefully about these things, but current policy does seem to be leading to counterintuitive decisions.

We don't consider "chromiums" as independent implementations: we consider WebKit, Chromium, and Gecko as separate implementations.... I should really update PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE to make this more clear.   


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/836#issuecomment-851755501