That is my point, but there is a big difference between discuss possibilities in the community and just saying: It's ready, just use it. And claiming that it is stable when it is totally not.
Companies are using it. That's what drives the browsers.
There are stats in the post.
Other than the Template Instantiation proposal, which of the technologies above aren't in the specs folder of that repo? Beyond that (which is noted very clearly as a proposal) everything else is 100% ready, as outlined in the article. What's more, discussion of the Template Instantiation proposal, and the benefits that will bring are have in the context of a production ready libraries that do similar work and specifically one that builds on the capabilities of the spec in anticipation of its arrival due to strong support across browser vendors and the developer community.
That is never a reason, and browsers should implement what w3c envisions, not the other way around.
Can you confirm for me what you think a proposal is?
It has been my understanding that the w3c doesn't make those internally, the community does. It just so happens in this case that some of the proposals came from the Chrome team at Google which had been spending a lot of time with devs and found some valuable additions to be made to the platform. In that case of Template Instantiation it comes predominately from Apple. In the case of HTML Modules, Microsoft.
Is the w3c not a consortium on many vested parties that together come up with the future of the web? You speak as the web we all work with is laid down as dogma from some shadow group.
Are you seriously suggesting browsers shouldn't focus on implementing anything and everything that is being massively polyfilled in the wild?
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.