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

#### Outline of issues

1. The WHATWG's [new feature guideline]( https://whatwg.org/faq#adding-new-features ) was not followed.
1. There was no research done prior to the proposal. The solution was predetermined, alternatives were not evaluated.
1. [Developers' feedback]( https://kaleidea.github.io/whatwg-search-proposal/#requests-for-this-feature ) was ignored.
1. Implementers (besides myself) haven't evaluated the complexity of the possible solutions. This led to the wrong belief that adding form functionality has "huge implementation costs" and complexity. This assumption couldn't be more wrong: the added complexity is trivial in fact as I've proven with the implementation.
1. The discussion became an echo chamber of speculative "risks and complexities". No one could present any evidence supporting those claims, but there is evidence to the contrary.
1. All the contrary evidence proving the viability of form functionality was ignored.
1. The proposal violates the [first web platform design principle]( https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies ) (Priority of Constituencies) as it was more important to make specification and implementation easy than to address developer needs: ["huge implementation and spec lift that isn't worth it"]( https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5811#issuecomment-958169793 ) (Fact correction: the implementation is trivial, the spec requires 3 days' worth of editorializing [that I've already done]( https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/7382/commits )).
1. Those who dismiss form functionality have failed to present any verifiable evidence to justify that position for months. There is no valid technical reason to dismiss form functionality.


#### Issues of professional conduct

The following information is not a complaint, but necessary to understand the context.

I've intended to fill the gaps in the standardization process with an alternative proposal, where I've summarized the research results. Stunningly, Domenic has [immediately closed it]( https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/7323#issuecomment-965145881 ), labeling it as ["off-topic"]( https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/7320#pullrequestreview-802253725 ).

In December I've prepared the implementation for an origin trial to acquire real-world data on the debated risks and resolve the disagreement. As soon as Domenic was informed about my intent, *within 3 minutes* he instructed the chromestatus.com admin to revoke my access, thus preventing the path to a resolution. This is in stark contrast with the [WHATWG's working mode]( https://whatwg.org/working-mode#conflicts ). By this time the origin trial might be in progress, but 2 months were lost due to animus.

These and other counterproductive actions necessitated a [code of conduct complaint]( https://github.com/whatwg/sg/issues/186 ). Unfortunately, the Steering Group was unable to provide remedy due to conflict of interest and [lack of established procedures]( https://github.com/whatwg/sg/issues/186#issuecomment-998039534 ).

Continuing this pattern, the implementations and the 2 months' work I've done isn't even mentioned in this description. It is clear that the intent is to make my work disappear.

It is very difficult to "collaborate" in this manner, yet it should be noted that despite all the negatives I've experienced, I have great respect for Domenic's expertise in standardization. We don't have to be always right to be valued.


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/714#issuecomment-1033505023
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/714/1033505023@github.com>