> There’s already a better spec from 2016

aka

This document is a draft of a potential specification. It has no official standing of any kind and does not represent the support or consensus of any standards organization.

▲

chrismorgan 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

It’s been implemented in Chromium for 4–6 years, Firefox’s position is positive (admittedly that was 2019), WebKit’s is neutral, and there are bugs open in both Firefox and WebKit.

I regularly criticise Google-only specs and point out how they’re not standards in any way, but this one is not really like that—it’s just that the other two platforms are missing a couple of other pieces that are better to get in place first, and it’s not a high priority for them.

And certainly in the context of this rel="share-url" outsider proposal, nah, the share_target manifest reference is still way more “official” than that.

	▲	troupo 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> It’s been implemented in Chromium for 4–6 years It makes it a non-official Chrome-only non-standard > Firefox’s position is positive (admittedly that was 2019), WebKit’s is neutral, Positions don't make a spec > but this one is not really like that—it’s just that the other two platforms are missing a couple of other pieces It literally means that in the very literal sense of the word literal: The "Status of this document" section states the following: --- start quote --- This document is a draft of a potential specification. It has no official standing of any kind and does not represent the support or consensus of any standards organization. --- end quote --- Which part of that tells you that "it's not like that"? It's not even on a standards track. It's not even a Working Draft (the very first level of a spec when vendors agree on the idea, but haven't iterated on the API: https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#rec-track) > the share_target manifest reference is still way more “official” than that. Google presents these napkin scribbles in the w3c format precisely so that gullible people would wave them around as actual specs.

▲

jeroenhd 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But unlike the proposal by the blog author, it's already been implemented by at least one browser vendor and received positive responses from another.

Sure, we could throw in another spec and maybe Mozilla will implement this one and maybe Safari won't be neutral to the new one, but why go through that effort when there's already a working solution to this problem?

	▲	troupo 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I've responded to a similar question in a sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44989500