3 ms·
> Are four actively-developed, open source, mainstream browser engines enough? I think so, given that we haven't seen a downside to a relative monoculture We h
by dmitriid 4y ago
> Are four actively-developed, open source, mainstream browser engines enough? I think so, given that we haven't seen a downside to a relative monoculture
We have a near-monopoly with Chrome, a very distant second Safari, and a nearly non-existent Firefox. Anything else (like Goanna or Flow) have literally zero impact.
Chrome's outsized influence is such that it no longer even pretends to care about consensus or processes at w3c and just ships random features at neck-breaking speed.
- AgentME 4y agoWhat features is Chrome shipping that it shouldn't?
- dmitriid 4y agoThe question isn't "should or shouldn't". The question is how. Web standards are supposed to be based on a) consensus and b) at least two independent implementations. As an example, let's take a recent Chrome-only non-standard that made HN frontpage, WebTransport: https://web.dev/webtransport/ https://web.dev/webtransport/ The status of this API? "Editor's Draft". That is, scribbled on a napkin [1] --- start quote --- These drafts have not received formal review and are not endorsed W3C. These drafts MUST NOT be cited as W3C standards and may or may not become W3C standards. --- end quote --- Guess what its status is in Chrome? Already shipped, and advertised as available. As with other such non-standards expect HN comments decrying other browsers as being "the new IE" because they are in no rush to develop this. [1] https://www.w3.org/standards/types#ED https://www.w3.org/standards/types#ED
- graftak 4y agoAnd the worst thing is when you call out Chrome for being the new IE instead[1] you get jousted by your web development peers because their dev tools are so great and other browsers are too slow to implement. [1] Pushing through (user hostile) apis without consideration about others