@whvholst How many other browsers (or, more specifically, rendering and/or javascript engines) did you try on? Two data points doesn't give much indication of their standards support.

@sparr @whvholst However, it's not like there are dozens of major engines. Missing Firefox support is a big one, regardless of the number of data points.

@shiide @whvholst supporting browsers should never have been a thing, and should cease to be a thing. support standards. if Firefox (or chrome, or safari) has a bug that breaks a standard, that's a firefox problem, not a problem with your website that follows the standard.

@sparr @shiide @whvholst that sounds like a perfect plan for stifling innovation and competition. While we're at it, cars should avoid adding safety features so people don't get confused about which car they are driving and all cars will fit in all garages, and it follows that buildings should all look the same, so no one gets confused about where the doors and light switches are, or where they should park.

@Matthewlariz @shiide @whvholst Adding features is potentially orthogonal to breaking standards. Nothing I said implied features shouldn't be added.

@Matthewlariz @shiide @whvholst New features being implemented as extensions (like the -moz-* styles) is one of the better options. Browser detection can also work, although it tends to lead to other bad behavior.

@sparr @shiide @whvholst browser detection is *literally* coding for the browsers... It's in the term itself. Even you use it to default to a basic page, you have made accommodations for users who aren't using the browser you wrote the rest of the site for. This is exactly the type of thing that would be used to address OPs issue, rather than your own position. Coding to, for example, the -moz- extensions is still coding to a specific browser, or worse a specific extension of that browser.