Re: [EXTERNAL] Updated site wicg.io

But it's ok for Tom Steiner to rant about Brave?

..tom


On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 10:03 AM Jason Grigsby <jason@cloudfour.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 9:03 AM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Something's really wrong here. Chromium is supposed to be open source and
>> lots of forks exist. But this group sounds like an internal Google thing.
>> If Google wants it, it MUST happen. And only 2 forks matter, Chrome and
>> Edge. I work on an incubating fork and expect that there will be some of
>> the features that are not allowed as they are considered not safe. That
>> process is likely to accelerate.
>>
>
> This is about W3C community groups, not a Google nor Chromium. Marcos,
> formerly of Firefox and now at Apple, is leading the discussion. Others
> involved, like me, don't work for any browser company.
>
> There are two discussions happening here:
>
> 1. Can we clear the cruft from the wicg site so that people can more
> easily distinguish between community groups that are active and those that
> have gone inactive?
> 2. How should we label specifications developed by the community groups so
> people can more easily understand their status? For example, which browser
> engines have implemented the a given spec and what cycle in the
> standard-setting process is the community group is in.
>
> If you want to nominate additional forks of Chromium to be listed in the
> labels, name the fork and make your case. For example, the recent
> discussion of Brave made me wonder if Arc should be listed separately as
> well. I do wonder if there is a percentage of market share that a browser
> engine fork has to achieve before it is something that the groups track.
> But I suppose that is up for debate or could even be configurable by the
> community group itself instead of being preset options.
>
> If you want to rant about Google, Chromium, or any other specific browser
> company, this probably isn’t the place for it.
>