Hi Domenic! First: I'm outside the edit window for the original post, but in hindsight it reads as more of an ad hominem than intended. My apologies.
I don't mean to malign the technical aspects of KV Storage, nor WICG / TPAC / TC39 / etc. collaboration, but rather the specific positioning of KV Storage in the article. There's no acknowledgement of collaboration nor explanation of where this proposal sits in the standards process. In fact, it gives the opposite impression:
- "the first one we're planning to ship"
- "do we have to wait until all browsers support built-in module [...] no!"
- "you can actually deploy your changes today!"
- "Chrome 74+ users won't have to pay any extra download cost"
That reads a lot like an Intent to Ship and counseling developers to begin relying on it, which feels wholly inappropriate given that the entire notion of having built-in modules at all is still a Stage 1 proposal.
Similarly, I do not believe any vendor should claim an in-house implementation of their own proposal as being inherently part of "the Web." It may very well end up that way, but can we at least wait until the proposal hits Stage 3 before using that kind of language?
I don't mean to malign the technical aspects of KV Storage, nor WICG / TPAC / TC39 / etc. collaboration, but rather the specific positioning of KV Storage in the article. There's no acknowledgement of collaboration nor explanation of where this proposal sits in the standards process. In fact, it gives the opposite impression:
- "the first one we're planning to ship"
- "do we have to wait until all browsers support built-in module [...] no!"
- "you can actually deploy your changes today!"
- "Chrome 74+ users won't have to pay any extra download cost"
That reads a lot like an Intent to Ship and counseling developers to begin relying on it, which feels wholly inappropriate given that the entire notion of having built-in modules at all is still a Stage 1 proposal.
Similarly, I do not believe any vendor should claim an in-house implementation of their own proposal as being inherently part of "the Web." It may very well end up that way, but can we at least wait until the proposal hits Stage 3 before using that kind of language?