How does that analogy make me "incorrect for the most part"?
True or false:
(1) Google/Chrome have pushed new protocols as replacements for established standards (e.g., SPDY to replace HTTP).
(2) Google/Chrome frequently implement bleeding edge "standards" in ways that don't work in many/any other browsers/engines (e.g., numerous posts on sites like Codrops illustrating new effects that actually only work in Chrome because they rely on non-standard features).
(3) Google/Chrome have dropped support for older functionality, only to replace it with new tools to do the same things (e.g., basically any popular plugin now).
(4) Google/Chrome produce a browser that in principle supports lots of new CSS features but in practice has numerous rendering bugs if you deviate from the most basic use cases (e.g., radial gradients that are mostly unusable due to banding/pixellation issues).
- SPDY was implemented in firefox as well and became the basis of HTTP2, which most web browsers support. True, but they pushed a new open standard that didn't lock you in
- -ie-, -o-, -webkit-, and -moz- are all not supposed to be used, but because they are there, and because we have css preprocessors, many of them are used. The problem is that not only do people use -webkit- css extensions they sometimes don't bother with anything but the -webkit- extension. (which will be a problem when google drops support of the -webkit- extension they were using because it is officially unsupported beta functionality.True, but it is currently the standard practice of all browsers, and there is a movement to kill this off
- Flash and java applets were/are
- That's more or less true for all modern browsers. It's one of the reasons frontend developers make so much, and are so hard to find.True, But, that is the same for all browsers.