> I can't use the Conde Nast CMS in anything other than Chrome, so I can't switch completely.
Highlight of the article tucked in at the end there.
Highlight of the article tucked in at the end there.
And it's not only wired. I've come across a lot of internal sites and intranets that are poorly tested on anything but Chrome. I know, it's not exactly the same thing as the old IE/ActiveX but it still grinds my gears when it happens.
We've been pushing this since IE6 ruled. :-)
Cross browser compability should be easier than ever so it should just be a matter of being a professional developer.
But I think this thread started with a CMS that didn't even work except in Chrome.
The w3c requires a standard to have 2 or more independent implementations of a spec. Why should Mozilla or Microsoft be responsible for writing an independent implementation of SQLite just so webSQL can be a standard.
Or, if you committed to keeping it simple and not chasing Postgres and MySQL, then there’s kinda no point. Just write a little SQL wrapper around LocalStorage.
In the end, that’s why we have LocalStorage—it’s simple. Like a file system. It means that you can have a clear sense of what browsers do and do not support.
I guess here’s a direct question: why do you prefer WebSQL over a tiny JS library that does the same thing?
Makes total sense as an engineering tradeoff if you're not in the business of saving the web but publishing a magazine.
I suppose I get it now. It was originally just branding to promote a Chrome monopoly, and now it's an artificial exclusive feature. I love the idea of Chromecast but it's sad that it's still so closed off.
Chromecast isn't an open protocol; Miracast seems to be [1]
A quick refresher for those that perhaps was not around in those heady days: to build even moderately advanced (dynamic) web pages that were cross browser compatible was not merely a question of remembering to test in both, it was a significant engineering commitment. To add to the badness, Netscape in those years was frankly just not a very good browser, so it was not a particularly easy sell. Thus a lot of apps built in those years only (and quite rationally, too) targeted IE4, 5 and finally 6, Microsoft being very focused on backwards compatibility. IE7 was the first browser standards compliant enough to make cross browser development reasonably easy, also being the first browser in the line to have to compete with Firefox. It broke backwards compatibility, which is why IE6 ended up hanging around for so long and being so hated, even if was the DHTML API of IE4 that was the original culprit.
Today, there is no good excuse to build web apps that does not work in all the major browsers, it's just so (relatively) easy. But that was emphatically not the case 15-20 years ago.