5 ms·

You'd think that a technology-oriented magazine like wired would at least try to aim for cross-browser compatibility in their infrastructure. But why bother, ma

You'd think that a technology-oriented magazine like wired would at least try to aim for cross-browser compatibility in their infrastructure. But why bother, make your CMS Chrome-only a policy and free yourself of extra testing. And it's not only wired. I've come across a lot of internal sites and intranets that are poorly tested on anything but Chrome. I know, it's not exactly the same thing as the old IE/ActiveX but it still grinds my gears when it happens.

TAForObvReasons 9y ago
If Firefox had a larger market share, it would be easy to make the argument for cross-browser compatibility. But when Firefox is not even 12% of Chrome's usage globally http://gs.statcounter.com/ http://gs.statcounter.com/ and likely much less for your customers it's difficult to appeal to ideals
- eitland 9y ago
  Oh come on. We've been pushing this since IE6 ruled. :-) Cross browser compability should be easier than ever so it should just be a matter of being a professional developer.
  - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
    There are a different and arguably smaller set of warts in 2017 compared to 1999 but that doesn't mean that it's easy to reproduce the exact layout, pixel for pixel, across Firefox, Edge, Opera, UC Browser, Safari, Chrome and other browsers in use.
    - eitland 9y ago
      That's true and to be honest I don’t care too much about pixel perfect. But I think this thread started with a CMS that didn't even work except in Chrome.
    - the8472 9y ago
      There is a difference between "it works" and pixel-identical results. Those are probably impossible due to font rendering differences anyway.
    - richardknop 9y ago
      Nobody cares about pixel for pixel perfection. But as a professional developer you should make sure that functionally it works in all major browsers.
    - jeffdavis 9y ago
      Why is pixel-for-pixel similarity even desired? Is it even true across versions of the same browser, or different user settings (like window size or font size)?
- Drdrdrq 9y ago
  Maybe, but those 12% (didn't check the numbers, I take your word for it) are much more sensitive about such discrimination. That's IE all over again...
  - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
    I'd be more sympathetic if there weren't examples of Mozilla explicitly fighting against features supported by the other vendors. The classic example is Web SQL, an immensely useful API that Mozilla fought hard against and successfully lobbied to kill off. Chrome and Safari still support it. So for a wide swath of problems, you can either use WebSQL and drop FF support or hack around with a slurry of third party libraries and inferior APIs. Should all web developers be restricted because a vendor with relatively small usage insisted on not supporting features?
    - kbrosnan 9y ago
      > This document was on the W3C Recommendation track but specification work has stopped. The specification reached an impasse: all interested implementors have used the same SQL backend (Sqlite), but we need multiple independent implementations to proceed along a standardisation path. [1] The w3c requires a standard to have 2 or more independent implementations of a spec. Why should Mozilla or Microsoft be responsible for writing an independent implementation of SQLite just so webSQL can be a standard. [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/ https://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/
    - lol768 9y ago
      And on the flip-side, we have MathML which the Chromium team decided to drop, fighting against an incredibly useful and performant (in comparison to other Javascript-based implementations) feature supported by Firefox and Safari which made mathematics a first-class citizen on the web.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Is WebSQL the "classic" example, or the only example? Can you give another?
    - 9y ago
- baq 9y ago
  How many millions of users is that 12% again?
  - StudentStuff 9y ago
    Hundreds of millions to be in the right ballpark. Even if the web has a billion users, 12% is 120 million users on Firefox.
wils1245 9y ago
It’s the parent company’s CMS, not Wired’s. I’d bet that the people at Wired are more annoyed by it than anyone.
- aylons 9y ago
  Well, they also own Ars Technica, which I suppose has its own CMS, but still...
coldtea 9y ago
>You'd think that a technology-oriented magazine like wired would at least try to aim for cross-browser compatibility in their infrastructure. But why bother, make your CMS Chrome-only a policy and free yourself of extra testing. Makes total sense as an engineering tradeoff if you're not in the business of saving the web but publishing a magazine.
OJFord 9y ago
At least it's Chrome.
- _ZeD_ 9y ago
  How is this better than those ie-only solutions?

TAForObvReasons 9y ago

If Firefox had a larger market share, it would be easy to make the argument for cross-browser compatibility. But when Firefox is not even 12% of Chrome's usage globally http://gs.statcounter.com/ http://gs.statcounter.com/ and likely much less for your customers it's difficult to appeal to ideals

eitland 9y ago
Oh come on. We've been pushing this since IE6 ruled. :-) Cross browser compability should be easier than ever so it should just be a matter of being a professional developer.
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  There are a different and arguably smaller set of warts in 2017 compared to 1999 but that doesn't mean that it's easy to reproduce the exact layout, pixel for pixel, across Firefox, Edge, Opera, UC Browser, Safari, Chrome and other browsers in use.
  - eitland 9y ago
    That's true and to be honest I don’t care too much about pixel perfect. But I think this thread started with a CMS that didn't even work except in Chrome.
  - the8472 9y ago
    There is a difference between "it works" and pixel-identical results. Those are probably impossible due to font rendering differences anyway.
  - richardknop 9y ago
    Nobody cares about pixel for pixel perfection. But as a professional developer you should make sure that functionally it works in all major browsers.
  - jeffdavis 9y ago
    Why is pixel-for-pixel similarity even desired? Is it even true across versions of the same browser, or different user settings (like window size or font size)?
Drdrdrq 9y ago
Maybe, but those 12% (didn't check the numbers, I take your word for it) are much more sensitive about such discrimination. That's IE all over again...
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  I'd be more sympathetic if there weren't examples of Mozilla explicitly fighting against features supported by the other vendors. The classic example is Web SQL, an immensely useful API that Mozilla fought hard against and successfully lobbied to kill off. Chrome and Safari still support it. So for a wide swath of problems, you can either use WebSQL and drop FF support or hack around with a slurry of third party libraries and inferior APIs. Should all web developers be restricted because a vendor with relatively small usage insisted on not supporting features?
  - kbrosnan 9y ago
    > This document was on the W3C Recommendation track but specification work has stopped. The specification reached an impasse: all interested implementors have used the same SQL backend (Sqlite), but we need multiple independent implementations to proceed along a standardisation path. [1] The w3c requires a standard to have 2 or more independent implementations of a spec. Why should Mozilla or Microsoft be responsible for writing an independent implementation of SQLite just so webSQL can be a standard. [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/ https://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/
  - lol768 9y ago
    And on the flip-side, we have MathML which the Chromium team decided to drop, fighting against an incredibly useful and performant (in comparison to other Javascript-based implementations) feature supported by Firefox and Safari which made mathematics a first-class citizen on the web.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Is WebSQL the "classic" example, or the only example? Can you give another?
  - 9y ago
baq 9y ago
How many millions of users is that 12% again?
- StudentStuff 9y ago
  Hundreds of millions to be in the right ballpark. Even if the web has a billion users, 12% is 120 million users on Firefox.

wils1245 9y ago

It’s the parent company’s CMS, not Wired’s. I’d bet that the people at Wired are more annoyed by it than anyone.

aylons 9y ago
Well, they also own Ars Technica, which I suppose has its own CMS, but still...

coldtea 9y ago

>You'd think that a technology-oriented magazine like wired would at least try to aim for cross-browser compatibility in their infrastructure. But why bother, make your CMS Chrome-only a policy and free yourself of extra testing. Makes total sense as an engineering tradeoff if you're not in the business of saving the web but publishing a magazine.

OJFord 9y ago

At least it's Chrome.

_ZeD_ 9y ago
How is this better than those ie-only solutions?