6 ms·

> It's not really comparable to IE. MS had a pretty explicit goal of destroying Netscape - to the extent that they were making deals with other companies to bre

> It's not really comparable to IE. MS had a pretty explicit goal of destroying Netscape - to the extent that they were making deals with other companies to break compat with Netscape. Netscape is irrelevant. The fact is Chrome is using it's market dominance to affect the implementation of standards and in doing so, is breaking numerous websites. That IE is famous for but because Chrome is made by Google, it gets a pass. > Chrome is breaking 'autofill=false' on webforms because its really bad to have autofill=false most of the time. That is not the Chrome web-teams decision to make. The point of standards is that the standards should be followed, regardless of your or anyone elses opinion. If you disagree with a standard, you work to change the standard, you don't just change your browser's implementation of the standard, break a ton of functionality all over the web, and then sit there saying "well that's how it should be." > This isn't anticompetitive - they aren't trying to break websites on Firefox, they aren't contacting websites to get them to do some Chrome specific thing. They're ignoring a really bad default that hurts users. I agree with this in principle, but then they should be working to see that the standard is changed, and do so in such a way that the other browsers can follow suit and allow the standard to be improved. I don't disagree with the stance Google is taking; I don't like that one company is allowed to make such a sweeping change, and all the people who would get all over Microsoft's or Apple's asses about it if it was done in IE/Edge or Safari, are just all cool with it because again, Google is the golden child.

laumars 9y ago
> Netscape is irrelevant. Netscape is entirely relevant. The question was raised about how different Google / Chrome are compared to Microsoft / IE and the answer is Netscape. Microsoft tried to tie the internet into their own platform, Windows + IE, due to them pushing non-standard rendering and ActiveX. Whatever your opinion of Chrome's break from standards might be, Google simply are not trying to lock people into Chrome on Android / ChromeOS. Remember that Google's revenue comes from ads, not software sales (as was the case with Microsoft). Chrome, Android, etc are just platforms to help leverage ads but they still make money from people running Firefox on Windows, Linux and OS X. So while you might dislike the standards Google are breaking in Chrome, the intent is very different from Microsoft in the 90s with Internet Explorer as Google are not trying to control the web (or at least not with the examples given in this discussion. I'm less convinced their intentions are honorable with AMP).
- hinkley 9y ago
  If we don’t want to repeat the 90’s we have to complain a lot sooner. If your litmus test is “as bad as Microsoft” then that’s exactly what we will get.
  - laumars 9y ago
    > If we don’t want to repeat the 90’s we have to complain a lot sooner. Complaining wouldn't change anything. Corporations don't change their policies because a few nerds moan on a few message boards. > If your litmus test is “as bad as Microsoft” then that’s exactly what we will get. It wasn't my litmus test. I feel you're missing my point because others are making that comparison and I'm saying the two don't compare. In Microsoft's case they broke from standards to lock people into their paid platforms. Clearly that's bad. But in Google's case the platforms are free and the break from standards doesn't lock users into any platforms. You can make arguments against Google break from standards if you want but comparing the two because they involve a web browser is just clutching at straws. Now, if you wanted to argue about Google corrupting the web then AMP is a far better example. There are far more similarities between MS+IE and AMP even though AMP isn't a web browser: • both are a free product that locks users into the company's revenue stream (ads in AMP for Google, Windows for MS) • both push their product through their massive market shares (Google promoting their AMP CDN on Google Search above the search results, Windows shipping IE) • both onboarded developers with promises to better user experience while locking them into a non-standard platform. I could go on, but in short AMP is where you guys need to be worried about with regards to Google shifting the web landscape. Not whether Chrome follows spec on a small handful of specific tag properties. That's a whole lot of hysteria over nothing.
    - magicalist 9y ago
      FWIW, only the second bullet point applies here > both are a free product that locks users into the company's revenue stream (ads in AMP for Google, Windows for MS) Ads on AMP sites don't have to be from google > both onboarded developers with promises to better user experience while locking them into a non-standard platform. AMP, while a particular subset of HTML/JS, is still just a subset, aka part of the standard platform and can run in any browser. Calling it non-standard would be like calling it non-standard to use React. It's just a library/framework.
jstarfish 9y ago
> That is not the Chrome web-teams decision to make. The point of standards is that the standards should be followed, regardless of your or anyone elses opinion. If you disagree with a standard, you work to change the standard, you don't just change your browser's implementation of the standard, break a ton of functionality all over the web, and then sit there saying "well that's how it should be." You're exaggerating the point of standards, and/or confusing them with specifications. Standards have always been open to (ed: some amount of) interpretation with regards to how they are implemented.
slrz 9y ago
Except that the Chrome behaviour isn't non-conforming. AFAICT, honoring autocomplete="off" is not required UA behaviour. It's a 'should', not a 'must'.

laumars 9y ago

> Netscape is irrelevant. Netscape is entirely relevant. The question was raised about how different Google / Chrome are compared to Microsoft / IE and the answer is Netscape. Microsoft tried to tie the internet into their own platform, Windows + IE, due to them pushing non-standard rendering and ActiveX. Whatever your opinion of Chrome's break from standards might be, Google simply are not trying to lock people into Chrome on Android / ChromeOS. Remember that Google's revenue comes from ads, not software sales (as was the case with Microsoft). Chrome, Android, etc are just platforms to help leverage ads but they still make money from people running Firefox on Windows, Linux and OS X. So while you might dislike the standards Google are breaking in Chrome, the intent is very different from Microsoft in the 90s with Internet Explorer as Google are not trying to control the web (or at least not with the examples given in this discussion. I'm less convinced their intentions are honorable with AMP).

hinkley 9y ago
If we don’t want to repeat the 90’s we have to complain a lot sooner. If your litmus test is “as bad as Microsoft” then that’s exactly what we will get.
- laumars 9y ago
  > If we don’t want to repeat the 90’s we have to complain a lot sooner. Complaining wouldn't change anything. Corporations don't change their policies because a few nerds moan on a few message boards. > If your litmus test is “as bad as Microsoft” then that’s exactly what we will get. It wasn't my litmus test. I feel you're missing my point because others are making that comparison and I'm saying the two don't compare. In Microsoft's case they broke from standards to lock people into their paid platforms. Clearly that's bad. But in Google's case the platforms are free and the break from standards doesn't lock users into any platforms. You can make arguments against Google break from standards if you want but comparing the two because they involve a web browser is just clutching at straws. Now, if you wanted to argue about Google corrupting the web then AMP is a far better example. There are far more similarities between MS+IE and AMP even though AMP isn't a web browser: • both are a free product that locks users into the company's revenue stream (ads in AMP for Google, Windows for MS) • both push their product through their massive market shares (Google promoting their AMP CDN on Google Search above the search results, Windows shipping IE) • both onboarded developers with promises to better user experience while locking them into a non-standard platform. I could go on, but in short AMP is where you guys need to be worried about with regards to Google shifting the web landscape. Not whether Chrome follows spec on a small handful of specific tag properties. That's a whole lot of hysteria over nothing.
  - magicalist 9y ago
    FWIW, only the second bullet point applies here > both are a free product that locks users into the company's revenue stream (ads in AMP for Google, Windows for MS) Ads on AMP sites don't have to be from google > both onboarded developers with promises to better user experience while locking them into a non-standard platform. AMP, while a particular subset of HTML/JS, is still just a subset, aka part of the standard platform and can run in any browser. Calling it non-standard would be like calling it non-standard to use React. It's just a library/framework.

jstarfish 9y ago

> That is not the Chrome web-teams decision to make. The point of standards is that the standards should be followed, regardless of your or anyone elses opinion. If you disagree with a standard, you work to change the standard, you don't just change your browser's implementation of the standard, break a ton of functionality all over the web, and then sit there saying "well that's how it should be." You're exaggerating the point of standards, and/or confusing them with specifications. Standards have always been open to (ed: some amount of) interpretation with regards to how they are implemented.

slrz 9y ago

Except that the Chrome behaviour isn't non-conforming. AFAICT, honoring autocomplete="off" is not required UA behaviour. It's a 'should', not a 'must'.