Oto Šťávaalefunguju@mastodon.social
May 14, 2026, 1:30 PMReplies
Jens Zalzalaanakin78z@mograph.socialMay 14, 2026, 7:25 PM@alefunguju Wow, no. No no no.
"Each one is a targeted fix for a specific website"
This is complete and utter horribleness. It's pandering to large websites that can't be bothered to write proper code, while leaving small sites in the dust.
Safari needs to make its browser less shit, not pretend to be Chrome.
FFS.
- Oto Šťávaalefunguju@mastodon.socialMay 14, 2026, 7:31 PM
@anakin78z From the POV of technical purity, absolutely. But guess who the general public will blame when a big website doesn't work in Safari/Firefox, while it works perfectly in Chrome. It's sad, but they really have no choice. Such is life in a world with (de facto) monopolies.
- Jens Zalzalaanakin78z@mograph.socialMay 14, 2026, 7:56 PM
@alefunguju I get that the public just wants stuff to work, but I don't look at this from a technical purity perspective. It's not like we're living in the old days when there were barely enough web standards. These days you can build a website that should work on anything.
The only reason we don't is because browser companies suck. By patching in fixes for popular sites, they ignore issues and give the impression that they don't suck, but that just makes life harder for other web devs.
- Oto Šťávaalefunguju@mastodon.socialMay 15, 2026, 8:12 AM
@anakin78z I think you're overestimating how standards-compliant those big websites are. I'm fairly certain the patching takes place precisely because the big sites *violate web standards*, but don't care because it just so happens to work out for them in Chromium-based browsers.