3 ms·

It takes resources (mainly developer time) to ensure that an application is working properly on multiple browsers. If you read the article you can see that a si

• msandford 12y ago
  There's a big difference between "provided a degraded experience in non-Chrome browsers" and "actively blocking non-Chrome browsers by means more invasive than UA checking" Remember, there isn't any kind of really legitimate API for 100% determining which browser you're running in. There's a lot of ad-hoc methods which usually work. These folks spent extra effort to block it from even TRYING to run in FireFox. How are the FireFox devs supposed to see the bad performance that they need to fix for Inbox to work right if they can't run it at all?
  • sosborn 12y ago
    There is also a big difference between "provided a degraded experience in non-Chrome browsers" and "you have to actively disable CSP (a global setting) for it to work in Firefox." Also, with respect to performance, this comment in the article might shed some light: "Also see Bugzilla entry. The use of spare arrays with huge indexes was a performance issue in Firefox. It's been fixed in Inbox and in FF but not shipped in FF yet. (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1087963)" https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1087963)"
• pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  But we're specifically talking about not hobbling other browsers not supporting them - you (or whoever) said that there are still support costs even when a browser isn't being "supported" (ie enabled to operate with a site at a suitable level).
  • sosborn 12y ago
    Did you read the part in the article about CSP?