3 ms·

In the past Chrome has played fast and loose with standards and features, which was fine for them since Firefox and friends needed to adopt them lest they widen

In the past Chrome has played fast and loose with standards and features, which was fine for them since Firefox and friends needed to adopt them lest they widen the "Only works on Chrom(e/ium)" gap. I wonder how removing a feature might go, however. The answer is "probably well because Chrome has overwhelming market share", but I do wonder if, between AMP and "no URLs" and no 3rd party cookies, if there's room for a small but growing "it just works how I'd expect it to on Firefox" contingent to spring up...

dmitriid 7y ago
Or, you know, it might not "just work" in Firefox because Google sabotages it: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686?s=20 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686?s=20
unlinked_dll 7y ago
"only works in chrome" == "not going to use" for me and all any company/team where I have influence over software dependencies/tools. Same goes for "only works on one target" software in general though, usually means something is under tested.