I think is a lot of unnecessary shade thrown towards Safari in this post. They are indeed slow to adopt new features, but in general I find their implementation quality to be better than that of Chrome in several areas.
If I had the choice between having everything implemented tomorrow, or a more sane and well refined standard, I'd choose the better standard every time. Nobody wants a Web Components v2.
First of all, thanks for your opinion. I didn't mean to be provocative here (at least, not that much as the impression makes it clear now).
Due to the objective reasons, it sometimes takes a while for Google Chrome team to convince Apple WebKit team on why they think the users need a certain low-level API. If I remember correctly, this has previously happened to Service Workers, and few smaller web APIs too.
I'm not blaming Safari here, and to be honest Firefox has had a lot of smaller issues, and missing features in particular, once they rolled 63. And I have also described the reasons for them being opposite to at least two of the mentioned issues.
In fact, the point here is both about how much the consensus means and why I'm not that excited about "Chrome-only" features shipped recently. I will consider updating the post accordingly.
No, but we do want 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13... Which won't happen soon enough if they lag too much.
Safari hasn't been keeping up in general for a while now. Wanna talk shade, did you miss people starting to call it the new IE? Ouch.
There could be good reasons, like you said. I'm assuming there are--there's no reason to think otherwise. For example, a couple of those missing features are actually brand spanking new and need more vetting.
Also, I don't think there's any risk of Web Components v2. The whole point of v1 was Safari agreed. Apple had lots of good feedback on Web Components. And they're just as capable of proposing specs as Google. I definitely hope they do if they're not happy with what Google's bringing to the table! They've contributed a lot of good over the years.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think is a lot of unnecessary shade thrown towards Safari in this post. They are indeed slow to adopt new features, but in general I find their implementation quality to be better than that of Chrome in several areas.
If I had the choice between having everything implemented tomorrow, or a more sane and well refined standard, I'd choose the better standard every time. Nobody wants a Web Components v2.
First of all, thanks for your opinion. I didn't mean to be provocative here (at least, not that much as the impression makes it clear now).
Due to the objective reasons, it sometimes takes a while for Google Chrome team to convince Apple WebKit team on why they think the users need a certain low-level API. If I remember correctly, this has previously happened to Service Workers, and few smaller web APIs too.
I'm not blaming Safari here, and to be honest Firefox has had a lot of smaller issues, and missing features in particular, once they rolled 63. And I have also described the reasons for them being opposite to at least two of the mentioned issues.
In fact, the point here is both about how much the consensus means and why I'm not that excited about "Chrome-only" features shipped recently. I will consider updating the post accordingly.
No, but we do want 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13... Which won't happen soon enough if they lag too much.
Safari hasn't been keeping up in general for a while now. Wanna talk shade, did you miss people starting to call it the new IE? Ouch.
There could be good reasons, like you said. I'm assuming there are--there's no reason to think otherwise. For example, a couple of those missing features are actually brand spanking new and need more vetting.
Also, I don't think there's any risk of Web Components v2. The whole point of v1 was Safari agreed. Apple had lots of good feedback on Web Components. And they're just as capable of proposing specs as Google. I definitely hope they do if they're not happy with what Google's bringing to the table! They've contributed a lot of good over the years.