> This sleight of hand is not going to work.
It's not a sleight of hand. It's a fact.
> and literally hasn't gotten "someone to type up something that describes the Chromium implementation into the standard".
And literally exists as a spec that I even linked. Which gives Chrome and gullible devs the license to say things like "oh look at this beautiful reasonable standard that other browsers have not implemented"
> All of the Chrome-proprietary APIs that shipped once upon a time in Chrome but were later removed from Chrome
Of course they haven't. By default everything that Google ships and is not a standard is Chrome-only.
So let's look at your example, Page Lifecycle API.
- Is it a standard? No.
- Is it even on a standards track? No
- Is it shipped only in Chrome? Yes.
- Has Chrome dropped it? No.
- Does this make it a Chrome-only non-standard? Yes.
- Does Chrome drop this and hundreds of other such APIs? Of course not.
Thankfully, we can check that from two sources:
- Chrome's own Web APIs dashboard. https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence If you click "Browser Specific", you will see that Chrome ships over a thousand Chrome-specific APIs, and that number grows rapidly.
And this is, undoubtedly on top of APIs that they pretend are standard. This is where the second source comes in
- MDN Web APIs list https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API
This one lists both actual existing APIs and "experimental APIs". Those experimental APIs? Most of them are "not a standard, not on a standard track" but are shipped in Chrome. I checked the letter B on that page. There are 4 experimental APIs. All of them are "not a standard, not on a standard track". All of them are shipped in Chrome.
> The moment where you resort to putting words in someone else's mouth is the moment you forfeit.
Which I of course didn't. I did paraphrase it for dramatic effect, but "this is not really true" and "all chrome-only proprietary APIs were dropped" amount to the same thing.
> Goodbye
Adieu
It's not a sleight of hand. It's a fact.
> and literally hasn't gotten "someone to type up something that describes the Chromium implementation into the standard".
And literally exists as a spec that I even linked. Which gives Chrome and gullible devs the license to say things like "oh look at this beautiful reasonable standard that other browsers have not implemented"
> All of the Chrome-proprietary APIs that shipped once upon a time in Chrome but were later removed from Chrome
Of course they haven't. By default everything that Google ships and is not a standard is Chrome-only.
So let's look at your example, Page Lifecycle API.
- Is it a standard? No.
- Is it even on a standards track? No
- Is it shipped only in Chrome? Yes.
- Has Chrome dropped it? No.
- Does this make it a Chrome-only non-standard? Yes.
- Does Chrome drop this and hundreds of other such APIs? Of course not.
Thankfully, we can check that from two sources:
- Chrome's own Web APIs dashboard. https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence If you click "Browser Specific", you will see that Chrome ships over a thousand Chrome-specific APIs, and that number grows rapidly.
And this is, undoubtedly on top of APIs that they pretend are standard. This is where the second source comes in
- MDN Web APIs list https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API
This one lists both actual existing APIs and "experimental APIs". Those experimental APIs? Most of them are "not a standard, not on a standard track" but are shipped in Chrome. I checked the letter B on that page. There are 4 experimental APIs. All of them are "not a standard, not on a standard track". All of them are shipped in Chrome.
> The moment where you resort to putting words in someone else's mouth is the moment you forfeit.
Which I of course didn't. I did paraphrase it for dramatic effect, but "this is not really true" and "all chrome-only proprietary APIs were dropped" amount to the same thing.
> Goodbye
Adieu