7 ms·
It's fair play after the IE-ification of the web before that.
by lallysingh 10y ago
It's fair play after the IE-ification of the web before that.
- nojvek 10y agoThat was the old IE. Edge is a whole new browser and management has changed since ballmer era. It's like punishing current generation of Germans because of hitler.
- jenscow 10y agoComparing IE to hitler - be fair, he wasn't that evil.
- coldtea 10y agoWho, Hitler?
- hartpuff 10y agoSomeone trots out Hitler analogy #879274032890, and it's the poster who at least turns it into a laugh who gets downvoted? Edit: And this post downvoted within seconds. What a fucking joke this place is thanks to assholes abusing their karma. (If I'm going to be downvoted, it may as well be for something real.)
- Arcsech 10y agoIt doesn't matter if it's "fair" - I don't want Chromification to become the new IE-ification. Vendor lock-in is always bad.
- recursive 10y agoI don't think Chromification is any better.
- HelloNurse 10y agoIndeed, in 2016 requiring IE can be forgiven as a symptom of Microsoft captivity and/or being behind the times, while requiring Chrome is a proud proclamation of some mixture of not caring about standards, not caring about UX, not caring about users, not caring about proper web design (in order to avoid proprietary features), and being an ignorant and arrogant Google fanboy.
- Freak_NL 10y agoIt's strange too, because if you are building a production-ready (i.e., not a proof-of-concept demo using bleeding edge technologies supported in only one browser) website or webapplication, the bare minimum level of browser support that grants you a very modern set of features you can depend on is to only support up-to-date evergreen browsers. That means Chrome/Chromium, Edge, and Firefox. I can get dropping Edge if you are an individual developer and simply don't have any Windows machines around (testing websites from a VM really sucks), but going Chrome-only pushes us back to the monopoly position that harmed our field so much in the first place. Actively moving towards a webkit-monoculture ultimately harms our profession.
- WorldMaker 10y agoIs it? The complaint at the time was the number of websites that outright blocked non-IE browsers rather than just letting the non-IE browsers try their best to render the pages, closing the web. Just because the tables are now turned it's appropriate for Google to break the open web? It seems evil from the standpoint of trying to support an open web (the arguments are the same now as they were back then), and it seems peculiarly childish and immature for a company as big as Google. Not to mention if you were going to do it based on standards support and caniuse.com statistics, it's Safari now that is the one that lags behind. Shouldn't Google also start blocking Safari now? Isn't that closer to "fair play"?
- arebop 10y agoworks on Firefox and Safari as well as Chrome. There's a difference between the old-school Microsoft efforts to break competitors and current efforts to support a (popular) subset of browsers.
- WorldMaker 10y agoBut the point is that with current standards, things that work on Firefox, Safari, and Chrome just work on Edge. It's extra effort on Google's part to throw up "not supported" banners and pretend like Edge is the worst scum and villainy on the planet. It's a terrible marketing effort disguised as "building a better web" and it's doing a disservice to the open web, modern standards, and basic common sense "do the right thing".