[HN Gopher] Interop 2022
___________________________________________________________________
Interop 2022
Author : feross
Score : 66 points
Date : 2022-03-03 17:02 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hacks.mozilla.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (hacks.mozilla.org)
| llimos wrote:
| The Acid Tests were funner
| dmitriid wrote:
| My reaction to this is, I quote:
|
| Note how none of the bullet points address anything of
| significance.
|
| https://open-ui.org/ which would _actually benefit users_ isn 't
| mentioned at all.
|
| It will be the same useless bullshit for the next 10-20 years,
| sabotaged by Google.
| csnover wrote:
| Honestly, I understand this, and I don't.
|
| I know that ensuring interoperability across implementations has
| always been the key to a healthy web platform. I get that Interop
| 2022 is not about interoperability with individual sites, or
| about focusing on one browser. But if you want a web that
| actually has more than one engine so that interoperability
| initiatives like this even exist or matter, you need to make sure
| that you still _have users_.
|
| The top webcompat issue for the past two years has nothing to do
| with editing, or viewports, or pointer events. It's Microsoft
| Teams not working[0][1]. The Bugzilla ticket has the highest
| priority, highest severity[2], and it is still broken. For two
| years.
|
| I'm aware of the irony of Editing API being one of the interop
| problem areas since it was basically a "try to write down how IE
| works so all the IE-only sites with text editors can work in
| other browsers" spec, and now here I am advocating for Mozilla
| and Apple to basically just go do that again, but when you are in
| a position of weakness sometimes you have to take the L and be
| pragmatic instead of bleeding users as you say "well it's
| Microsoft's fault so Microsoft should fix their shitty code".
|
| It feels so tone-deaf to say that that bug reports from webcompat
| were used to guide decisions on interop focus and then ignore
| that 3 of the top 5 issues are voice and video. I mean, I'm sure
| that they were used, but I don't know how everyone who is in a
| good position to fix it seems OK with just ignoring this
| situation.
|
| [0] https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues/25070
|
| [1] https://github.com/webcompat/web-
| bugs/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is...
|
| [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1623340
| jitl wrote:
| Interesting. Firefox's handles deleted nodes in ContentEditable
| quite differently from other browsers we tested, so I'm glad to
| see contentEditable at least on the "investigation list". Here's
| my pet issue:
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1735608
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| When "the web platform" can render the majority of pages in plain
| text on my w3m browser, over a low bandwidth or Tor connection,
| then let's talk about interoperability.
| pentagrama wrote:
| What means the image with the numbers 71, 74, 73? Amount of
| compatibility issues from each browser? A score? (x out of 100 I
| guess?) The image should have footer explaining that. In the text
| do not say explicitly what it is.
| pentagrama wrote:
| Update: The image alt tag says "Interop 2022 scores.
| Chrome/Edge 71, Firefox 74, and Safari 73." It also should be
| in the body text, and is out of 100 I guess.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-03 23:00 UTC)