@jaseg I would also consider petitioning the W3C to remove google as a member, because it's clear they're trying to "works best with IE6" the internet again, which goes against the fundamental goals of the W3C.

Not so much that they have prototype code already written (that's actually not unreasonable to demonstrate feasibility/behavior in some cases) but that they're 'proposing' this through the private github account of one of their employees, rather than as a formal "google" or W3C proposal, which means they likely intend to shoehorn it past as "standardizing existing behavior" once they've rolled out their "beta" to end-users regardless of what the W3C has to say about it.

IMO undermining the entire purpose of a standards organization that you are part of by attempting to sidestep it should be grounds for instant antitrust actions from various governments. We do not need another IE6 incident.

@becomethewaifu @jaseg

W3C is honestly one of the best examples I can think of when it comes to regulatory capture:

- Google dominates WHATWG, many things which only have relevance to their interests are pushed, such as Encrypted Media Extensions (aka DRM), various things which should not be happening in an untrusted security context like WebUSB, etc. This browser attestation thing is just the latest example of their misbehavior.

- Facebook now dominates SocialCG, and effectively has editorial control over ActivityPub (sorry @evan, but this is the reality: $$$ rules the day at W3C, and we have much less than Facebook).

- The whole Web Monetization debacle, which has lovely players like Coinbase and PayPal involved.