Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] <search> HTML element (Issue #714)

Hello, I'm Kaleidea, seasoned software architect, volunteer contributor (individual [workstream participant]( https://whatwg.org/workstream-policy#workstream-participant )).

[I've researched and implemented the `<search>` element]( https://kaleidea.github.io/whatwg-search-proposal/#implementations ) in the 3 main browsers with and without form functionality. I've been waiting for the `search` element for some time. I give great importance to developer experience and API ergonomy, and I saw this proposal needs some support in that direction, so I was happy to invest my free time for about 2 months to help progress this feature. The [Chromium implementation]( https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3323365 ) got close to prototype stage.

That's an order of magnitude more effort than all other participants combined, yet **I have to oppose** this proposal due to various violations of design principles, WHATWG principles and policies. The list of issues has unfortunately grown very long since November 2021.

- **[THE FULL REPORT]( https://kaleidea.github.io/whatwg-search-proposal/standardization-flaws/ )** includes detailed evidence and references.
- There is also an [appeal under the WHATWG workstream policy]( https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/7594 ) that poses questions for Domenic.


#### Cause of the contention

Domenic wrongly assumed that form functionality would have significant complexities and risks, thus he excluded that option even before standardization began. If an implementer would have evaluated the possible solutions, it would be clear the complexity is minimal. To this day I'm the only implementer to have done that [evaluation]( https://kaleidea.github.io/whatwg-search-proposal/implementation ). Unfortunately, Domenic [didn't want to hear]( https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/7323#issuecomment-965145881 ) the research results.

I hope we can avoid burdening W3C with further fruitless debate that's been going on for 3 months, so these are the reasons why the discussion failed:
- A few coworkers of Domenic have repeated these assumptions with different wording and perspective.
- Nobody has presented any supporting evidence. Nobody has done the necessary research to verify the claims.
- The arguments against form functionality are unexplained "complexities" and generic statements ("code for some completely unrelated functionality could break").
- That can happen to any new feature. These arguments are the manifestation of the fear of the unknown in various forms, that could be lifted by research, which wasn't done.
- I have presented very detailed [evidence and reasoning]( https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5811#issuecomment-1033479691
 ) in 15+ page-length comments and the implementation to prove that the complexity and the consequences are minimal and predictable. All this was ignored.

Since November 2021 I've tried many approaches to get the message through. It was ignored. I've also raised a number of complaints that were ignored too. All attempts at resolution failed, making the current opposition necessary.

After all that happened, it is pointless to debate the form functionality in any other form but to present verifiable examples (SourceGraph, HTTPArchive) to support any claim. That should happen on the [WHATWG discussion]( https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5811 ) to keep this place focused.


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/714#issuecomment-1033504871
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/714/1033504871@github.com>