3 ms·

Cause Chrome implemented that eons ago. Of course Firefox isn't going to implement anything, Firefox has been a thorn on the side of web standards for a good de

Cause Chrome implemented that eons ago. Of course Firefox isn't going to implement anything, Firefox has been a thorn on the side of web standards for a good decade now, thanks to Mozilla's management.

chrismorgan 5y ago
Chrome implemented and shipped an early draft and has, I believe, broken it multiple times since. What it shipped has significant security implications that are handled poorly at best (mostly not at all). Firefox and Safari have said “you what!? No way we’re implementing that as it is”. And Safari are now implementing the safe and boring part of the spec, not the part that people actually want.
JimDabell 5y ago
> Cause Chrome implemented that eons ago. Of course Firefox isn't going to implement anything If Chrome matters, Firefox doesn’t, and Safari is measured against when Chrome supports something rather than when the specification becomes stable, it sounds like you think the web is defined by “whatever Chrome supports, whenever Chrome supports it”.
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  Good web standards are whatever simplify my work as a developer. Firefox used to be at the forefront of web standards. I can guarantee you Firefox will eventually be running Blink because Mozilla has no vision for the future of the web anymore. Mark my words.
  - JimDabell 5y ago
    Do you remember the last time we had a near monoculture for browsers? People with attitudes like yours were all too happy to think of Internet Explorer as the only browser that mattered. Microsoft decided they had won and mothballed Internet Explorer development. We then had a dark ages for web developers with five years of no progress in browser functionality. Positioning Chrome as the definition of the web is incredibly harmful for the long-term health of the web. A web independent of a single vendor is vital.
    - throw_m239339 5y ago
      You're blaming me for Mozilla's failures? How about you stop being complaisant of Firefox mediocrity?
      - JimDabell 5y ago
        > You're blaming me for Mozilla's failures? Where did I say that?
    - johannes1234321 5y ago
      > Microsoft decided they had won and mothballed Internet Explorer development the difference is that Microsoft wanted to protect the Desktop platform. Google isn't in that position with the Andorid platform, but requires improvement on the Web. That said: I fear the power Google has in that realm.
  - chrismorgan 5y ago
    Good web standards take implementer consensus and users into account too, including their security. Google has ploughed ahead with File System Access in order to meet a developer desire (and occasionally user desire). Mozilla and Apple have declined to implement it (or at least the dangerous half) because no one can find an acceptable solution to the security problems. File System Access is not currently a good web standard—in fact, it has not even progressed to being a web standard, because of these problems.

chrismorgan 5y ago

Chrome implemented and shipped an early draft and has, I believe, broken it multiple times since. What it shipped has significant security implications that are handled poorly at best (mostly not at all). Firefox and Safari have said “you what!? No way we’re implementing that as it is”. And Safari are now implementing the safe and boring part of the spec, not the part that people actually want.

JimDabell 5y ago

> Cause Chrome implemented that eons ago. Of course Firefox isn't going to implement anything If Chrome matters, Firefox doesn’t, and Safari is measured against when Chrome supports something rather than when the specification becomes stable, it sounds like you think the web is defined by “whatever Chrome supports, whenever Chrome supports it”.

throw_m239339 5y ago
Good web standards are whatever simplify my work as a developer. Firefox used to be at the forefront of web standards. I can guarantee you Firefox will eventually be running Blink because Mozilla has no vision for the future of the web anymore. Mark my words.
- JimDabell 5y ago
  Do you remember the last time we had a near monoculture for browsers? People with attitudes like yours were all too happy to think of Internet Explorer as the only browser that mattered. Microsoft decided they had won and mothballed Internet Explorer development. We then had a dark ages for web developers with five years of no progress in browser functionality. Positioning Chrome as the definition of the web is incredibly harmful for the long-term health of the web. A web independent of a single vendor is vital.
  - throw_m239339 5y ago
    You're blaming me for Mozilla's failures? How about you stop being complaisant of Firefox mediocrity?
    - JimDabell 5y ago
      > You're blaming me for Mozilla's failures? Where did I say that?
  - johannes1234321 5y ago
    > Microsoft decided they had won and mothballed Internet Explorer development the difference is that Microsoft wanted to protect the Desktop platform. Google isn't in that position with the Andorid platform, but requires improvement on the Web. That said: I fear the power Google has in that realm.
- chrismorgan 5y ago
  Good web standards take implementer consensus and users into account too, including their security. Google has ploughed ahead with File System Access in order to meet a developer desire (and occasionally user desire). Mozilla and Apple have declined to implement it (or at least the dangerous half) because no one can find an acceptable solution to the security problems. File System Access is not currently a good web standard—in fact, it has not even progressed to being a web standard, because of these problems.