Matthew Lariz
- 9 Followers
- 64 Following
- 36 Posts
Just me. Not much more.
@CardboardRobot But the Socket is numbered CW, right?
@Triskaideka furthermore, why would I want every authenticated site tracking what type of devices I use?
@badrihippo @whvholst @shiide @sparr I don't think that's necessarily true, is it? Bad code could cause too many connections to be spawned, no?
@badrihippo @shiide @whvholst @sparr ... At that point the reasons to have multiple browsers would be whittled down to something like bug avoidance and cosmetics.
@badrihippo @shiide @whvholst @sparr that don't work in browsers that ONLY support standards. Further, the point they argued against was that the EU should work to support browsers other than the one they are criticizing for monopolistic practice.
In theory, if we didn't support browsers at all ("should never have been a thing") then innovation is slowed to the pace of standards development and adoption.
@badrihippo @shiide @whvholst @sparr Standards are great. However not all design objectives are compatible, and even sparr backtracked a bit in my opinion in saying that there's no wrong in writing code for specific browsers, but generally here they elide the fact that, even if all of the standards are met, there is still room to do things...
@badrihippo @shiide @whvholst @sparr yes. The goal isn't, or shouldn't be to "be right" in the conversation but rather for everyone to "be right" at the end.
@badrihippo @shiide @whvholst @sparr i wasn't actually arguing what you seem to think i was, about what was broken. I framed my comments around the example case OP had, but my comments are solely aimed at the silly assertion that web-devs shouldn't "support browsers" in their sites. I don't disagree with many of sparr's points on their own, but those points are off target in the context of trying to make their original assertion correct.