Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Renée

@aburka in the early days of consensus internet a working implementation went a lot further than a proposal that would get bikeshedded to death on Usenet, tho.

Proud as I am to have been blocked by MA on Twitter ages ago for politely calling bullshit on some fuckery or other, this isn't the worst way to go about presenting an idea for negotiating a change to a standard. "Let's try it, and if it works, share with others" isn't a bad approach.

@dragosr

3 comments
Jeff Smith

@reneestephen @aburka @dragosr Rough consensus and running code. “Rough consensus” loosely defined

🌸🌹2ck 🌱🐇

@reneestephen
isn't it still the way things are done? yeah, you need to make a spec and propose it, but if you come with working code that just cuts down on so much variation from underspecified parts of the system to have a reference implementation
@aburka @dragosr

Sören

@reneestephen @aburka @dragosr that may have been true then, but today, the dynamic is

1) (browser vendor) implements feature
2) browser vendor also offers spec
3) it gets accepted as a draft
4) web devs start using it
5) other browser vendors have comments on the spec; it’s still a draft
6) web devs ignore them, complain that other browsers don’t implement the feature the exact way vendor 1 did

It’s… not great. Maybe the days of prefixing were better after all.

@reneestephen @aburka @dragosr that may have been true then, but today, the dynamic is

1) (browser vendor) implements feature
2) browser vendor also offers spec
3) it gets accepted as a draft
4) web devs start using it
5) other browser vendors have comments on the spec; it’s still a draft
6) web devs ignore them, complain that other browsers don’t implement the feature the exact way vendor 1 did

Go Up