There have been other arguments made too, including much speculation about why Safari might be killing the web - is this motivated by protecting Apple's app store profits? I'm going to ignore those suggestions entirely, and stick to concrete problems. We'll dig into each of these points in more detail in a second, and then we'll talk about what Safari could do instead. Refusing to engage with the contentious API proposals for real use cases doesn't actually protect the web anyway - it just pushes web developers and users into the arms of Chromium.The largest Safari complaint is unrelated to experimental features from the Chrome team: it's the showstopping bugs in implemented features, made worse by Safari's slow release cycle.Most features that Safari hasn't implemented have no hint of security, privacy or performance concerns, and they've been implemented in every other browser already.
More specifically, Safari's approach isn't protecting the web from bloat & evil Google influence, because: That is worth further discussion, because it's widespread, and wrong. I don't want to rehash the basics of that, but I have seen some interesting rebuttals, most commonly: Safari is actually protecting the web, by resisting adding unnecessary and experimental features that create security/privacy/bloat problems. There's been a lot of discussion recently about how "Safari is the new IE" ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
0 kommentar(er)
