4 ms·

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?
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  WebSQL does seem a little nutty to me. You’d perennially be in a state of wondering which SQL features it supported and which it didn’t. It would just introduce a whole other layer of browser incompatibilities as the browser vendors prioritized different features and performance optimizations. Or, if you committed to keeping it simple and not chasing Postgres and MySQL, then there’s kinda no point. Just write a little SQL wrapper around LocalStorage. In the end, that’s why we have LocalStorage—it’s simple. Like a file system. It means that you can have a clear sense of what browsers do and do not support. I guess here’s a direct question: why do you prefer WebSQL over a tiny JS library that does the same thing?

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?
erikpukinskis 9y ago
WebSQL does seem a little nutty to me. You’d perennially be in a state of wondering which SQL features it supported and which it didn’t. It would just introduce a whole other layer of browser incompatibilities as the browser vendors prioritized different features and performance optimizations. Or, if you committed to keeping it simple and not chasing Postgres and MySQL, then there’s kinda no point. Just write a little SQL wrapper around LocalStorage. In the end, that’s why we have LocalStorage—it’s simple. Like a file system. It means that you can have a clear sense of what browsers do and do not support. I guess here’s a direct question: why do you prefer WebSQL over a tiny JS library that does the same thing?