5 ms·

Why is this bad? From anyone other than a browser vendor's perspective.

by boucher 17y ago

codexon 17y ago
Its bad because you would have maybe a dozen different "browser" plugins to visit several different websites. You as a web designer wouldn't know which ones to design for especially if people can't install plugins, and as a result, would have to add on even more testing than the usual IE6/7/FF/Opera/Chrome/Safari. Your website will also include the special hashtag thingie cruft at the top to support multiple browsers. Overall, its a bad bad idea.
- tumult 17y ago
  I guess this needs repeating: Chrome Frame doesn't load unless there's a specific tag in the page telling it to.
  - codexon 17y ago
    Do I really have to spell this out for the HN audience? (Really annoyed by these comments and downvotes). You don't really think chrome will be the only browser to do this? And also, you will be snooping for plugin compatibility just like people are doing today for browser compatibility.
    - tumult 17y ago
      Then don't use it on your site?
    - aboodman 17y ago
      I actually think it would be interesting if there was a standard interface between the renderer and the browser ui. This would allow renderers to compete on their own merits with their real customers (developers), instead of being shackled to the success or failure of their attached UI. OTOH, one potentially bad outcome would be that there would be increased stickiness of content. Once content is authored targeting one renderer, there is little reason for authors to update it since they can always target the old renderer.
    - boucher 17y ago
      You don't need to spell anything out. People disagree with you. First, there's no realistic world in which all of a sudden everyone is using different plugins. Almost nobody in the world has the kind of distribution that Google does. Very few people could pull this off, and I doubt even Google can. Second, if there were a way to get users to install plugins 99% of the time, then we wouldn't have half the issues we currently do. You act like it would be a bad thing to test for the availability of plugins which enabled new features. It wouldn't be. It would actually be quite awesome. Third, Chrome Frame is exactly the same as Chrome, so, at least in theory, there is NO NEED to test for anything knew. Even if every browser did this, there would be NO NEW browsers. There may be some implementation gotchas, but I don't see the same kind of doomsday scenario you do. Anyway, I think it's highly unlikely Chrome Frame goes anywhere at all.
- lupin_sansei 17y ago
  Where does the dozen come from? There's only Google Frame plugin.
  - codexon 17y ago
    See my comment below.

Why is this bad? From anyone other than a browser vendor's perspective.

by boucher 17y ago

Why is this bad? From anyone other than a browser vendor's perspective.

Its bad because you would have maybe a dozen different "browser" plugins to visit several different websites. You as a web designer wouldn't know which ones to design for especially if people can't install plugins, and as a result, would have to add on even more testing than the usual IE6/7/FF/Opera/Chrome/Safari. Your website will also include the special hashtag thingie cruft at the top to support multiple browsers. Overall, its a bad bad idea.

tumult 17y ago
I guess this needs repeating: Chrome Frame doesn't load unless there's a specific tag in the page telling it to.
- codexon 17y ago
  Do I really have to spell this out for the HN audience? (Really annoyed by these comments and downvotes). You don't really think chrome will be the only browser to do this? And also, you will be snooping for plugin compatibility just like people are doing today for browser compatibility.
  - tumult 17y ago
    Then don't use it on your site?
  - aboodman 17y ago
    I actually think it would be interesting if there was a standard interface between the renderer and the browser ui. This would allow renderers to compete on their own merits with their real customers (developers), instead of being shackled to the success or failure of their attached UI. OTOH, one potentially bad outcome would be that there would be increased stickiness of content. Once content is authored targeting one renderer, there is little reason for authors to update it since they can always target the old renderer.
  - boucher 17y ago
    You don't need to spell anything out. People disagree with you. First, there's no realistic world in which all of a sudden everyone is using different plugins. Almost nobody in the world has the kind of distribution that Google does. Very few people could pull this off, and I doubt even Google can. Second, if there were a way to get users to install plugins 99% of the time, then we wouldn't have half the issues we currently do. You act like it would be a bad thing to test for the availability of plugins which enabled new features. It wouldn't be. It would actually be quite awesome. Third, Chrome Frame is exactly the same as Chrome, so, at least in theory, there is NO NEED to test for anything knew. Even if every browser did this, there would be NO NEW browsers. There may be some implementation gotchas, but I don't see the same kind of doomsday scenario you do. Anyway, I think it's highly unlikely Chrome Frame goes anywhere at all.
lupin_sansei 17y ago
Where does the dozen come from? There's only Google Frame plugin.
- codexon 17y ago
  See my comment below.