Yes, but the long-debated solution settled on a solution that obviously wasn't very strong, if it can't withhold an external suggestion like this.
Mostly what I get from the article is the sense that people are put off not because of how the Apple proposal was put up for discussion, but that they spent months of their time discussing something, and feel like they got nothing for it. And that rings false to me; either that discussion was useful and helped them identify something superior Apple proposal, or the discussion was a waste of time and resulted in nothing useful, in which case they should just be mad at themselves (or the process).
I don't get the Apple conspiracy angle here. They want something that works better with WebKit? So that means that all of iOS, Android, Chrome and Safari browsers benefit.
>Yes, but the long-debated solution settled on a solution that obviously wasn't very strong, if it can't withhold an external suggestion like this.
The implication is that the long-debated solution lost out not because it was inferior but because it didn't come from a browser vendor. After all, the difference in timescale and hoop jumping is stark.
And the implication of that is that no browser vendors were involved in the months-long discussion. If that's true, then that seems like a huge mistake on the part of the committee.
There is no "Apple conspiracy angle". Nobody has suggested Apple were forcing their implementation.
They aren't even angry that they spent months for the proposal to be rejected.
They're angry that they go through the standard processes for months, when vendors seem to just throw an idea out there and it's in the spec within days.
Nobody's blaming Apple. It just appears from the outside that there is a rule for vendors, and a rule for everyone else.
Mostly what I get from the article is the sense that people are put off not because of how the Apple proposal was put up for discussion, but that they spent months of their time discussing something, and feel like they got nothing for it. And that rings false to me; either that discussion was useful and helped them identify something superior Apple proposal, or the discussion was a waste of time and resulted in nothing useful, in which case they should just be mad at themselves (or the process).
I don't get the Apple conspiracy angle here. They want something that works better with WebKit? So that means that all of iOS, Android, Chrome and Safari browsers benefit.