81–90 of 774 posts
All this coming from this build bug for ARM64Win? https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=893460 Is there anything else to dig into to validate?
Abandoning EdgeHTML on the basis of that bug report would be drawing a long bow.
Interesting theory and thread: https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/10697763353362923... “This isn’t about Chrome. This is about ElectronJS. Microsoft thinks EdgeHTML cannot get to drop-in feature-parity with Chromium to replace it in Electron apps, whose duplication is becoming a significant performance drain. They want to single-instance Electron with their own fork”
What MS is really doing is replacing HTA,WinStore apps, whatever with Chromium, because their own tech can't compete with Chromium as they didn't seriously invest in it. I'm actually starting to believe the people who are claiming that MS is rebuilding Office in JS from scratch...
Interesting theory and thread: https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/10697763353362923... “This isn’t about Chrome. This is about ElectronJS. Microsoft thinks EdgeHTML cannot get to drop-in feature-parity with Chromium to replace it in Electron apps, whose duplication is becoming a significant performance drain. They want to single-instance Electron with their own fork”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who has (luckily) only had to support Firefox/Edge/Chrome, can you go into why IE11 is so bad? In the very small amount of testing I've done, everything seems to render just fine (especially compared to IE6/7/8)
I've been on multi year projects to modernize old IE applications, and one of the things that IE11 misses is "standard" xpath evaluation. A lot of old "dhtml" apps were all in on soap/xml. There's some wierd IE only hold over css in it like cursor hand vs pointer. On the whole it's not too bad really. The reason why IE11 will live for a long, long time is it's compatability modes. You can run apps all the way back to…
Wow, that would really frustrate me. One of the first things I do (or check to make sure it's done by whatever css library I'm using) is add
a { cursor:pointer; }
to my css file. The first time I tested a website in IE11, I would be pulling my hair out!! Or more likely I would google it, but still, it would be frustrating.
On the one hand developers have one less engine to worry about. On the other if it becomes a chromium monoculture then Firefox loses.
No, there's now more reason for gecko to survive. Can't have single engine dominate the web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And nobody knows how that’s calculated. If the implementation is done via JS we can assume a good portion of all the browsers usage % is incorrect.
The absolute number is not that important, the trend is. That's clear even in Mozilla's own data: https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity shows they went from 303M monthly active users at the end of Nov. 2017 to 277M this year. This is a serious drop.
Also, as a web dev who is trying to push the limits of what is possible given current web APIs, being shackled by edge's lack of compatibility is really a hindrance and makes really cutting-edge stuff impossible. So, it will be nice to not have to worry about that as much.
It didn't seem like microsoft was ever serious about advancing the development of the web with edge; they were just always trying to catch up (and doing so poorly). Microsoft is probably gauging the state of their browser now and coming to the conclusion that they're too far behind to make a realistic comeback without totally revamping their approach; lots of firings/organizational reshuffling, etc.
At least google is serious about the web APIs, even if its' only because it aligns with their financial interests—at least it does end up being a good user experience; i think that's what matters.
--
edit: Also, not trying to belabor the point, but this subject on the whole is especially important to me. Chrome has allowed me to do crazy-amazing things with SVGs for my dev agency (1) since, well, they actually follow most of the SVG spec. I think most browser vendors see the SVG spec as superfluous and don't follow the spec verbatim, and that stops people like me from doing more awesome things with it; I'll literally have clients pitch me awesome ideas and my response is; sorry, we can do that but it just won't work in safari! So it becomes a no-go for all.
If other vendors really were able to dedicate serious resources towards their browser implementations then yeah, I would also be unhappy about microsoft's decision here. Optimally they would shell out more resources to their Edge division; but since they don't care about web experience the way google does—I agree that deferring to the experts is the best case scenario for everyone (i.e. developers like me and then users). At least, until microsoft redefines their priorities.
[1] www.beaver.digital
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blink and WebKit cannot be considered as separate implementations - their codebase is in sync AFAIK.
Blink was forked a long time ago–do they still share patches?
As a firefox fax, I hope this isn't true. The dominance of chrome isn't good for anyone. This will lead to (even more) sites not bothering to be made compatible with Firefox. We are headed back to the "designed for IE" days.
IMHO, I personally think it's a good thing to consolidate on one engine to render HTML cross-platform for these two reasons:
1. Web developers no longer need to worry about supporting CSS and other edge-cases across various browser engines.
2. The Chromium engine itself is open source. There are other browsers (Vivaldi, Opera, etc) that run on top of it.
3. While I think it's great the engine underneath is the same, I think it's equally great that there is a variety of UIs and browsers built on top of the same engine - the innovation happens in the browser space, not the engine, anymore.