4 ms·

There is actually an argument to be made here for a single browser base that all browsers are built from. for one if we only have one rendering engine then com

There is actually an argument to be made here for a single browser base that all browsers are built from. for one if we only have one rendering engine then compatibility is no longer an issue. I would mean that browsers could focus of innovation of browser features rather than keeping ones engine up to date.

sfink 4y ago
> There is actually an argument to be made here for a single browser base that all browsers are built from. Yeah, but the argument is a really bad one. > for one if we only have one rendering engine then compatibility is no longer an issue. Yes, because it's no longer even a concern. Your single implementation will have bugs, because every implementation of a new feature has always had cross-compatibility bugs. Only now they're not bugs, they're backwards compatibility land mines that can never be fixed. > I would mean that browsers could focus of innovation of browser features rather than keeping ones engine up to date. Why? What would be the motivation to innovate on browser features when you've already won? It would enable new things to be done on the web, which would be good for the people doing those things, but would increase the revenue of the browser makers by $0. If you owned a business and could pay someone $200K to do something that makes $0, or instead pay them $200K to do something else that makes $50K-$5M, which would you choose?