Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 3rd Dec 2012 15:25 UTC
Permalink for comment 544030
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-18
Not really IMHO. Two reasons:
* Yet again whoever allowed vendor specific extensions made a massive mistake, they assumed that web developers would adhere to recommendation (not many do, which is ignoring the reality of the situation ... they took an idealistic and not pragmatic view). At some point they could have made a line in the sand ... but they didn't have the balls.
* Companies only care about the top X% support, Webkit was there first, was ahead of the game and it was abused because people have mouths to feed.
I could go on about this .. as this is my trade.
But IE was soo damn superior at the time compared to the competition and there were no real standards in place (much like today) there was little point taking anything else seriously.
You can rage all your want about that, but at the time standards supports was a joke and the only browser that came near to it was IE.