On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Mike Beltzner <beltz...@mozilla.com> 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 ;)
I was involved in the Geolocation spec, so I'm aware of how well it
worked. To restate what Jeremy said, this started out as a discussion
about an extension API. That would be the easy answer, and it is
something that vendors frequently do. It still might be a useful
starting point.
But I specifically broadened the discussion because we Chromites are
very keen to push things down into the web platform where possible, so
that it benefits all applications, not just Chrome extensions. Doing
this obviously means collaboration with other vendors, and when we get
to the point of actually proposing something, that would clearly be
the way to go.
Right now we're just discussing, though. I think it's OK to ponder
without a W3C mandate.
- a
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
