[jljljl]

Java is only cross platform if you use the JDK, Flash is only cross platform if you use Adobe's plugin, etc. So I don't think this is a completely funny definition of cross platform.

>>It doesn’t strike me as a particular draw given that it’s at least possible, if still somewhat painful, to build truly cross-platform apps with offline capabilities.

If you can achieve a cross platform experience using something that's installed on most PC's, and if it offers features or simplicity that is not available in the truly cross-platform spec, then that seems like a strong draw.

[zobzu]

TBH JDK has open, 3rd party implementations. I'm running one right now.

Chrome's API don't have this. Chrome == Chromium, and there's nothing else under the sun that either have it or want it.

HOWEVER - Chrome has the largest marketshare by far, thus enforcing whatever it wants. Knowing competitors will not pick up the functionality because "its really made just for Chrome, not for the open web", that's called "extinguishing" competitors. But I'm sure everyone is all too familiar with that concept.

[patrickaljord]

jdk is not open source, or wasn't at the time. So 3rd parties open implementations were required. Chrome through chromium is an open implementation by default and it's highly maintained, tested and optimized. Reimplementing it wouldn't make much sense and so would complaining about the lack of implementations.

[pcwalton]

> Reimplementing it wouldn't make much sense and so would complaining about the lack of implementations.

I do not think that Chromium represents the best possible implementation of the Web stack. Having multiple implementations of HTML and the various related specs is what has pushed them forward so rapidly.

[zobzu]

so you say we should ditch all browsers and only use chrome. my issue VERY exactly.