I see the browser market as working quite differently. There are only two browsers. And one of them sucks.
There's the WHAT-WG browsers (safari, new symbian browse, OLPC browse, firefox, chrome, iPhone, Opera), and there's IE. Actually, I lied. There are 3 browsers: WHAT-WG, IE6, IE7. That's the developer's point of view. If it works on Firefox, it almost always works right on opera and safari too. If it doesn't, the fix is almost always easy and simple. Contrast this to an app that works on IE6, which means little in regards to the odds that it'll work right on firefox, and vice versa. The good news, is that microsoft is slowly bleeding market share over their merry band of idiot browsers, and in response, IE8 so far seems to be spooling up to be a lot more like the WHAT-WG browsers. We'll have to wait and see for the final release. However, Apple has already dropped one of those 3 (IE6) for their online offerings, and I expect more companies will follow suit. This is good, because the people who have moved on to IE7 will very likely also move on to IE8 fairly swiftly - the stragglers and those with idiotic upgrade and testing checklists will be forever stuck on IE6 (some are still stuck on IE5.5!) and will be carefully trained to stop whining about being left behind by the web community, or get with the program and upgrade already. Your argument of 'more browsers should be good', therefore, really doesn't hold any water. In that we're already there: 20% of the world uses a WHAT-WG browser, so if you build an IE only site, you're already alienating a heck of a lot of users. The 1% of chrome marketshare, most of which actually came out of the WHAT-WG camp, hasn't changed this status quo in iota. The bigger point is: The existence of google chrome simply does not mean there's 'another browser'. It's Webkit under the hood. I seriously doubt the current hegemony of 4 code bases (IE, Opera, Gecko, and WebKit) will be upset much: WebKit and Gecko are open source and bloody excellent, not to mention representing many manyears of work, so there's absolutely no reason other than sheer idiocy to create a new browser engine from scratch now. On Sep 10, 5:25 am, Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That is the correct way to render a pseudo-class per CSS rules. > You're seeing the application of :focus which isn't required to reflow > the box elements of the page. So it sounds like Chrome is doing it > correctly. > > On Sep 9, 3:48 pm, Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Has anyone else noticed that Chrome doesn't render Google.com quite > > right? > > > I know I'm nitpicking here, but if you select the Google search box, > > it displays, like Safari, a faint orange halo around the text box. But > > because the "Search" and "I'm feeling Lucky" buttons are touching the > > text box below, it overlaps the halo, making it look a little funky. > > > Kind of ironic. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
