[krono]

Its great that everything just magically seems to work so well for you, but behind the curtains it took additional effort from the developers of websites you visit to make it so. Same goes for Safari and some of the less popular browsers.

[JohnBooty]

I mean, this is a broad topic and I am more of a backend engineer than frontend these days.

However, I did do a lot of frontend back in the old IE6/IE7/IE8 days when you essentially had to code a whole separate front end for Microsoft's standards-flaunting mess. So this is definitely an issue I care about.

    but behind the curtains it took additional effort from 
    the developers of websites you visit to make it so

This is true, but in my (limited recent) experience often it's because Chrome implements some rando de facto new "standard" thing they cooked up so of course they are out in front of the other browsers.

So yes, you often can't run your Chrome-specific shit elsewhere without workarounds and polyfills, but this doesn't automatically mean everybody except Google is screwing up. In some cases, complaints such as yours sound like folks in 2004 complaining that their ActiveX controls work in IE but not Firefox.

[krono]

Yes absolutely! Also why I tagged on that call-out of Safari and other browsers.

And not to forget that Google has even shipped several early-days standards track features to production of which the API was still in flux. In a few cases the API later changed in - for Chrome, at least - breaking ways. Fun times.

[notatoad]

>your chrome-specific shit

okay, but does mozilla have a good reason for not supporting that stuff other than "we have limited resources to implement these things"?

a lot of that chrome-specific shit is really really nice. like CSS nesting - that would be amazing. firefox has a bug for tracking the implementation, and supported the standardization of it. but there's no sign of any progress towards an implementation. meanwhile safari and chrome have both shipped it.

[Entinel]

> okay, but does mozilla have a good reason for not supporting that stuff other than "we have limited resources to implement these things"?

That depends on what you are referring to. No there is not a one size fits all answer. For example, Chrome has implemented Filesystem API that Mozilla is still debating on because they see it as a security issue. You can agree or disagree but there reason is still something other than "we don't have the resources to do it"

[JohnBooty]

    For example, Chrome has implemented Filesystem API 
    that Mozilla is still debating on

This also highlights the vastly differing goals of the various parties.

Google explicitly wants two major things from Chrome.

One, they obviously want to track as much personal information as they possibly can, because they are an ad company.

Two, they want "the web" to essentially be a full OS replacement, with filesystem access etc. Because Microsoft is one of their primary rivals (or frenemies, if you will) and they can't leave themselves to the whims of others' platforms. They need their own platform.

These goals are... well, let's say divergent (to put it mildly) from what "the web" means to others. HTTP was originally supposed to be a human-readable way to publish and link information, not an OS replacement, and certainly not a PII-siphoning tool.

And yet, some folks still default to simply assuming whatever Google decides for the web is right, simply because they seem to be moving the fastest.

Yeah, they're usually moving the fastest, but people should think about where they're heading and why.

[JohnBooty]

I feel like each feature has it's own story (and it's own party to blame, when some browsers support it but not others)

If FF is lagging behind Safari on a particular CSS feature that certainly points to FF being behind the curve.

Sometimes it's FF or Safari simply being slower than Google. Sometimes it's a matter of the Chrome team creating an implementation of feature XYZ and getting it minted into the standard so of course they have the only implementation for a while.

Sometimes the FF and Safari teams have specific objections to a feature, often because unlike Google they actually consider user privacy a core part of their mission. Although, of course, with CSS features... that's not gonna be a privacy thing.