This is one of the most detailed and balanced articles I have read so far on the topic. However, like every other one I've read, it omits one very important clarification about 'Web Environment Integrity':
It is not part of the Web. This is exclusively a Google draft for a Google Chrome feature, and whilst Google is a member of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), they are not doing this as a member. I don't believe such a proposal would get even as far as a working group charter, given how limited it is to Google's interests. The only reason that it's a threat to the Web is because of their overwhelming market dominance, which is approaching a monopoly already.
I fear that the prominent use of the term 'Web' in this kind of document is tarnishing the reputation of the W3C, who have a solid process[1] to avoid pursuing these short term interests when they come with the risk of long term damage to the openness of the Web.
Some historical context: WHATWG[1], the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group, was originally a spin-off of the W3C[2], and was an organisation formed in 2004 by W3C members unhappy with decisions made in the W3C at that time. In 2019, a 'Memorandum of Understanding' was signed[3] agreeing to various principles for coordination between the two organisations.
The W3C is still very much active, and produces the vast majority of specifications that are implemented by 'web browsers' (in the general sense) like Chrome, Firefox and Safari, and they have their own standardisation process which is comparable in quality to organisations like ISO.
The area in which WHATWG are most active, though, is HTML, for which they produce what they call 'Living Standards' that have a different process from W3C's. CSS is done inside the W3C, and JavaScript is formalised by ECMA, an entirely different organisation still.
It is not part of the Web. This is exclusively a Google draft for a Google Chrome feature, and whilst Google is a member of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), they are not doing this as a member. I don't believe such a proposal would get even as far as a working group charter, given how limited it is to Google's interests. The only reason that it's a threat to the Web is because of their overwhelming market dominance, which is approaching a monopoly already.
I fear that the prominent use of the term 'Web' in this kind of document is tarnishing the reputation of the W3C, who have a solid process[1] to avoid pursuing these short term interests when they come with the risk of long term damage to the openness of the Web.
[1]: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/