@f09fa681 Issue #552 of whatwg/html pretty much explains for itself what it means for contributions which don't get "enough implementer interest" in the #WHATWG despite having a significant #webdev grassroots support.
This obsession in making sure at least two "implementers" have the feature baked into their codebases is frankly bull and is one of the factors of why we have such a #Google-biased #web. Theoretically it's there so that every feature would be certain that there are players backing and seeing that feature being useful and good for the #openweb, but in reality it has become Google's veto in most cases, with the popular being one of the victims here. It has been a standard for quite some years, yet Chrome's developers seem to have an extreme case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome and decided not to implement it for whatever reason. Maybe they really don't have an interest in it and are therefore in "patches welcome" mode like a corporation would do in #opensource. Or maybe, they saw it as a threat to their Google #WebComponents because it pretty much satisfies most of the usecases their toy project #ShadowDOM is designed to solve, and web developers don't want to deal with such a complex feature just to limit the scope of their #CSS. Whatever the reason is, this should not kill a feature that has been long-awaited by many web developers to be supported in their #browsers and is backed by a well-maintained and developed #browser (which is #PaleMoon in this case).
Allowing comments in GitHub issues is ultimately useless if the final decisions are made by a closed cabal of big "implementers" who as history has shown has been pretty much Google's lapdogs most of the time.
vintprox