4 ms·

Does anyone else find it extremely off putting that companies that are supposed tech leaders are pushing "web" features to a subset of browsers? I really have

Does anyone else find it extremely off putting that companies that are supposed tech leaders are pushing "web" features to a subset of browsers? I really have trouble accepting the fragmentation in the web world. This includes less extreme cases like mobile/desktop versions of browsers without user ability to toggle between the two. Stuff on the web should just work on all browsers. How did we get to this point, seriously?

tbirrell 10y ago
We cannot have both the uniformity that comes of a single universal browser and the benefits that come from a free marketplace. So long as anyone can make a browser, there will be differences. And the day we try to eliminate that will be a dark day indeed.
- chii 10y ago
  they should have a minimum level of compatibility. that's the meaning of a standard. that's why DVD players can play any DVD, no matter who manufactured it. open standards means open competition. if in the future, only browsers who can implement the EME can survive, it will kill the small start up browser who other wise would have innovated and beat the incumbent.
  - vntok 10y ago
    > that's why DVD players can play any DVD, no matter who manufactured it This is not entirely true though: a US-bought DVD player won't accept to play DVDs bought in China, Europe, Australia, etc.
    - chii 10y ago
      but a chinese made DVD player can play a US dvd. The fact that a browser sucks doesn't prevent good browsers from being made. But with this EME, you now is forced to use the US made dvd player, for no good reason other than profit for the encumbent.
hkmurakami 10y ago
We'll start with the fact that not all browsers have the features needed for a Web application to implement the features it wants to.
sidlls 10y ago
> Stuff on the web should just work on all browsers. How did we get to this point, seriously? This isn't any different from the compatibility issues across desktop operating systems. You wouldn't expect a mac desktop app binary to "just work" when double-clicked on a Windows OS. I know, the web supposedly has a standard that should make this argument null, but the fact is browsers are basically being used as though they're little mini-operating systems by both consumers and developers. This kind of fragmentation has historically been just something that happens as each "operating environment"'s maintainers implement their own flavor of whatever, standards be damned. And even with a completely coherent, well-formed standard, browsers will have (sometimes subtly) different behaviors between operating system implementations that will make 100% standards compliance forever be relegated to "nice to have" status.
- notyourwork 10y ago
  > This isn't any different from the compatibility issues across desktop operating systems. You wouldn't expect a mac desktop app binary to "just work" when double-clicked on a Windows OS. It actually is a completely different issue. The web is a standard, browsers implement that standard. It isn't perfect but its not the same intention as different OS architecture.
  - sidlls 10y ago
    Yes, hence my comment about the argument being made null by the existence of a standard--but that's only in theory. In practice, often because of OS-driven constraints (e.g. the desktop vs Android version of any given browser), different tradeoffs with respect to the quality, breadth, and depth of implementation differ. The point is this: the existence of a standard doesn't guarantee uniformity in implementations.
    - notyourwork 10y ago
      Based on that premise, why do we even have a standard? Oh yea, because of the intention for interoperability.
    - 10y ago

tbirrell 10y ago

We cannot have both the uniformity that comes of a single universal browser and the benefits that come from a free marketplace. So long as anyone can make a browser, there will be differences. And the day we try to eliminate that will be a dark day indeed.

chii 10y ago
they should have a minimum level of compatibility. that's the meaning of a standard. that's why DVD players can play any DVD, no matter who manufactured it. open standards means open competition. if in the future, only browsers who can implement the EME can survive, it will kill the small start up browser who other wise would have innovated and beat the incumbent.
- vntok 10y ago
  > that's why DVD players can play any DVD, no matter who manufactured it This is not entirely true though: a US-bought DVD player won't accept to play DVDs bought in China, Europe, Australia, etc.
  - chii 10y ago
    but a chinese made DVD player can play a US dvd. The fact that a browser sucks doesn't prevent good browsers from being made. But with this EME, you now is forced to use the US made dvd player, for no good reason other than profit for the encumbent.

hkmurakami 10y ago

We'll start with the fact that not all browsers have the features needed for a Web application to implement the features it wants to.

sidlls 10y ago

> Stuff on the web should just work on all browsers. How did we get to this point, seriously? This isn't any different from the compatibility issues across desktop operating systems. You wouldn't expect a mac desktop app binary to "just work" when double-clicked on a Windows OS. I know, the web supposedly has a standard that should make this argument null, but the fact is browsers are basically being used as though they're little mini-operating systems by both consumers and developers. This kind of fragmentation has historically been just something that happens as each "operating environment"'s maintainers implement their own flavor of whatever, standards be damned. And even with a completely coherent, well-formed standard, browsers will have (sometimes subtly) different behaviors between operating system implementations that will make 100% standards compliance forever be relegated to "nice to have" status.

notyourwork 10y ago
> This isn't any different from the compatibility issues across desktop operating systems. You wouldn't expect a mac desktop app binary to "just work" when double-clicked on a Windows OS. It actually is a completely different issue. The web is a standard, browsers implement that standard. It isn't perfect but its not the same intention as different OS architecture.
- sidlls 10y ago
  Yes, hence my comment about the argument being made null by the existence of a standard--but that's only in theory. In practice, often because of OS-driven constraints (e.g. the desktop vs Android version of any given browser), different tradeoffs with respect to the quality, breadth, and depth of implementation differ. The point is this: the existence of a standard doesn't guarantee uniformity in implementations.
  - notyourwork 10y ago
    Based on that premise, why do we even have a standard? Oh yea, because of the intention for interoperability.
  - 10y ago