Agreed. It's also worth pointing out that the context of this started out as an API for the add-on/extension system and evolved into an API that might be more broadly available.
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Mike Beltzner <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6-May-09, at 3:30 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > > Anyhow, I've heard arguments both ways. Some people think we should not >> let the standards keep us from experimenting (and then raising the topics >> with the standards group later) and some people think it's better to bring >> up the idea and formalize all the details first. Personally, I'm more in >> the second camp, I don't think there's any harm in prototyping something up >> and using it as a vehicle for discussion. >> > > There isn't, as long as it clearly stays a prototype and it's developed in > the open with input from multiple parties. Many successful APIs have evolved > this way (see: geolocation). The ones that don't work as well are ones > driven by a single party, without consultation or invitation for > collaboration, as they tend to be too specific and not broadly useful. > > From my vantage point, anyway ;) > > cheers, > mike > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
