zlacker

> You seem to be taking things that are factual, normal, everyday, aspects of the WHATWG working process and trying to imply that chrome is doing something unusual, or untoward with its process here, but it isn't. It's doing what is necessary to make a proposal with WHATWG: have a trial.

And yet, we've seen many such proposals go through this process because Chrome is paying lip service to it. Whatever Google wants it ships. And Google wants this.

As an adjacent (ads- and tracking-related) example: Google's FLoC flopped, hard. So they immediatey shipped the replacement Topics API [1] despite there being no consensus. E.g. Firefox is against [2] (but Chrome presents Firefox's position as "No signal" in the feature status). And despite the fact that its status is literally "individual proposal, not accepted" [3]

Do not assume any good intent on Google's part when it comes to Google's business interests. Their intent is always malicious until proven otherwise. And there have been fewer and fewer cases when they have been proven otherwise.

[1] https://chromestatus.com/feature/5680923054964736

[2] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/622

[3] https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics

>>troupo+(OP)
I don't follow, is the issue that Google is lying about trying to standardize something (what you claimed before, and which clearly isn't true), or that they're implementing things that aren't standardized[1] and which you dislike (true, but, like, fine. You can use other browsers)?

If chrome implements WEI and it isn't standardized, you're not going to be knocked off the internet if you use firefox. That's extremely silly.

[1]: Keep in mind that things that aren't standardized include third party cookie behavior, so the behavior that FF and Safari have, that you support, isn't standardized either. If you're fully against browsers implementing nonstandard apis or features, you can't be in support of third party cookie sandboxing at all.