Ah yes, the Open Web, brought to you by MS, Google, Apple, Mozilla, and Op^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H. Remember, if there's anything you don't like about their decisions, you can change things just by starting your own web brower and getting your first hundred million users.
A more straightforward response would just be to call for HTML to be brought back under the control of the W3C. There are certainly merits to that, but at the same time a) W3C has its own obvious flaws as the overlord of HTML, b) no matter how benevolent a dictator W3C would or could be, even democratic (or quasi-semi-democratic) control is not the same thing as actual openness in the form of de facto (not just notional) forkability, and c) there's no easy and obvious way to get the yoke of W3C control back on the necks of the browser-vendor cartel, no matter how desirable it might be.
Regardless, one important first step is for people in general to have a clear-eyed view of what the present situation really is. One necessary part of that is for people to stop having a reflexive feel-good response to the 'Open Web' slogan.
Troll is wrong. Engineers don't make things that are dependent on closed standards (stares at different frameworks especially cocoa touch framework). We don't need a new Flash!
I'm not a troll. It's pretty obvious that the Web is significantly more open than Flash or iOS or what have you. That's not sufficient to make it open.
I would say the reason is Google Docs! The current version doesn't use contentEditable [0] anymore, Google wrote a custom renderer in JS using one DIV per line with custom word wrapping, etc.
With Adobe's CSS Regions and other improvements [1] everyone could write an Google Docs competitor (single person mode) in one hour. Of course, Google and Microsoft with its Office Web fear this possible upcoming situation.
It would be awesome if some browser devs improve "contentEditable". It's really sad, there are so many bugs in Webkit and Firefox bugtrackers and got submitted related to this topic and no one fixed them. And no new features arrive either for years. Read some source code TinyMCE & co and you know what I mean, a lot of hacks to work around browser bugs.
Yes. The Google Groups discussion made it clear that Blink devs are not interested in Adobe's patches for several reasons. And the real reason seems be more political (Google Docs interests) than anything else.
What's weird is that even Microsoft IE10+ and Apple iOS 7 support CSS regions! And Chrome (and Opera Next) want even remove multi-column support, or at least fall back to a inferior bugg solution, wtf.
What I don't get that Mozilla proposed their own inferior solution. It's reminds me of Mozilla's movement against WebSQL, a very sad story for HTML5.
We have sufficient market share on the desktop that a few months from now, we will be in a position to unilaterally dictate them.
We hope to leverage this control to achieve the same dominance in mobile eventually."
—
"In practice, this allows us to call the project "open" while simultaneously ensuring Google will be the only effective contributor to the Chrome and Blink source now and in the future. We've had enormous success co-opting the language of open source in the past to imply our products are better, and we aim to continue with that strategy."
Short-sighted. Chrome's original performance push didn't come at the expense of web platform features and that's part of why it was able to supplant existing browsers.
Any claims that this will improve performance in the long-term are misguided: These kinds of layout features are necessary, so stripping them from the core (especially when other browsers are implementing them) will result in a nasty mix of browser-specific pages and low-performance javascript shims.
> Chrome's original performance push didn't come at the expense of web platform features
What evidence is there that it did not come at the expense of Google support for any proposed Web Platform features that Google could not efficiently implement?
> The evidence is the feature-full browser that was Chrome
Which has good support for what were already web standards, and good support for what became web standards through, among other things, Google's support, but you haven't yet provided any evidence that, in choosing which proposed new standards to support, Google was at all reluctant to oppose any that would have conflicted with the optimization work it was doing.
(Given how bad the performance state of the web was, then, it may be the case that the proposed web standards at the time wouldn't have conflcited at all with the kinds of optimizations that were on the table -- which still doesn't show the claimed change in attitude vis-a-vis optimization and web standards, just as change in environment.)
You can get the same effect without java-script using Wrap and cutting an image into multiple sections. So, while useful long term there is little immediate need to add this feature if it's causing some issues.
