[jazoom]

Once Safari and Edge stop giving me headaches I might be more sympathetic to their cause.

We still have new browsers popping up, like Brave and Vivaldi. We still have Firefox, which is decent.

I don't understand what your concern is in this context.

[gcp]

The Edge and Firefox teams already spend large amounts of time being bug-compatible with Chrome so websites, especially mobile ones, continue to work.

That time would be better spent elsewhere.

(Note that Brave doesn't have its own engine, it's Chromium. Unsure about Vivaldi - is it Blink based or Presto based?)

[benaiah]

Vivaldi is an Electron-based wrapper for Chromium - thus it's Blink, not Presto. Since Opera moved to Blink a while back as well, I'm fairly certain no extant browser uses that rendering engine, and I believe its development has ceased entirely.

[jazoom]

Sure. But until someone comes up with the magic wand to fix this I'd prefer one set of bugs to deal with rather than 4. I don't believe the open web is hurt by this, which was the whole point of the original comment.

[gcp]

Thing is as long as web engines evolve you can't have this. There was a moment say 3 or 4 years ago when some people, including key jQuery devs, were saying that Firefox should just switch to WebKit and that would solve web development because there'd be only one engine to target.

What actually happened is that Android phones got stuck on several outdated WebKit versions, Safari on another, and then Chrome forked WebKit into Blink.

So instead of one engine, you now have...like 5 or 6, realistically.

Trying to target standards compliance instead of relying on browser quirks is still the best strategy, both for devs and the ecosystem. It was in 2002 and it still is in 2017. Without it, we wouldn't have iPhones, Android phones or Chrome, for crying out loud.