Re: [EXTERNAL] Updated site wicg.io

I didn't read that as a rant. Samsung does things different so they should
have a separate label. Brave does things different and should have a
different label. The differences have caused developer confusion which is a
fact.

Maybe the language "call Brave out" could be interpreted as strongly
worded, but if you follow the link, you'll see the article doesn't attack
Brave. It simply states, "A notable exception is Brave where it is
currently only available behind a flag," in a paragraph that lists
implementation details on a few different platforms. Pretty innocuous.

So you can take the negative interpretation of that language. Or you can
give a generous interpretation of the language. Or maybe even consider the
fact that the person writing it lives in another country and English might
not be their first language (I don't know for sure and don't presume to
speak for Thomas).

So I can see how you could have read the note about Brave as an attack, but
I suspect it didn't land that way for others. As an outsider without a
horse in the race, it definitely didn't seem like a rant to me. And without
landing that way, your reaction seemed out of proportion and off-topic for
the current discussion.

If I'm in the minority and others read the note as an attack on Brave, then
I’m sure Thomas will apologize, clean it up, and get us back on topic. I
sincerely doubt it was his intent to attack Brave.

Either way, I'm anxious to get back to the business of figuring out how we
can help people who visit the WICG figure out which incubators are still
active and which browser engines and their forks support those
specifications.

On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 10:07 AM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>>
>

-- 
+1 (503) 290-1090 o | +1 (503) 502-7211 m | http://cloudfour.com | @grigs

My book, Progressive Web Apps
<https://abookapart.com/products/progressive-web-apps>, from A Book Apart
is available now!