I do not believe your post adds clarity. What MIGHT add clarity is something like, "Oh, this is an unfinished error page" or an accident. Any Web developer kno

I do not believe your post adds clarity. What MIGHT add clarity is something like, "Oh, this is an unfinished error page" or an accident. Any Web developer knows that now it would take intention, effort, not to support Webkit browsers (Chrome, Safari). I mean, if we take your interpretation, we should assume that laptops support, say, USB1, 2 and 3. They just _don't show their female ports_ on the panels. Can we just call a spade a spade? Otherwise the whole page itself is nearly meaningless. "Support" becomes a meaningless word. Moreover, that's beside the point. It's CERTAINLY fair to suggest that to say the least, without much analysis, we can say that this page implies that FB [intends] a better experience on browsers which are not Chrome or Safari. THAT is fair. And it's bloody absurd. Chrome is now No. 1. And they knew that long before StatCounter had anything to say about it. I won't say "let's face the facts and say FB has a bone to pick with Apple/Google." But please don't go the opposite end of the extreme to argue that, "Oh, no, this page doesn't mean anything. Obviously FB supports [JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER BROWSER NOT ON THAT LIST.]" I mean, c'mon... By this reason, FB supports Netscape 2, Firefox 3, Camino, Lynx, etc. etc etc.