[zx8080]

It's sad that there are specific browser-oriented websites (and development processes, obviously) instead of the standards-oriented ones.

(Sure, it's Chrome-oriented ones. We've seen similar previously with IE, by the way.)

We have standards for the web. Real ones: the docs, which are discussed and approved in the industry. We have them for a long time!

So if some browser does not comply to the standards, it's really not the best strategy to adapt a site to the browser instead of the standards.

We are in the situation when (effectively) one company (Google/Alphabet) can lead anything to the whole market, step by step (even when changes contradict the web standards that are in place). The market is not the browsers market, of coyrse, but the internet ads through browsers control, which brings the most money to Google. By projecting its power to each and any aspect of it, Google ensures the uninterrupted market control for years ahead. So Google will continue to do. In the long run, we need to rely on standards instead of specific browsers. Otherwise it's just the monopoly of Google and web tech "market" is just their own backyard. That will bite us all hard.

[kajaktum]

Having a standard is not even possible technically when you have 1 player that is too good. Due to Hyrum’s Law, any small divergence from the spec will be observed and relied on. Why would you work against the spec which is nebulous, when you could be testing against 99% of what your user use?

[zx8080]

> ...when you have 1 player that is too good.

It's not too good. It's just wealthiest. Because it holds ads market monopoly. Because it happens to be the popular search engine at the same time.

But it's not the best. Firefox is on par (I know they get some (most?) payments from Alphabet). And people were using Firefox/Netscape browser long before Google existed.