It's really not that hard to find examples of this. Chrome recently broke rounded corners, and they're about to break h.264 video. But it's certainly more fun to attack Microsoft in every post.
Chrome did not "break" rounded corners, they are various cases in which they arent perfect, but every time someone makes this argument they just point to "search the chrome bug tracker" as opposed to giving a specific breakage
They have decided not to support h.264 at a time when every developer had to already have implemented a fallback anyway, again its not broken.
> Chrome did not "break" rounded corners, they are various cases in which they arent perfect, but every time someone makes this argument they just point to "search the chrome bug tracker" as opposed to giving a specific breakage
Here's an example bug where the antialiasing was screwed up:
And here's one demonstrating the (much worse) problem that you could get completely different colours showing through, although the screenshot isn't great because it only shows a small issue, not the much more offensive result if you had a larger corner radius:
Spending literally one minute with Google would find you numerous related problems with screenshots attached.
Pretending this wasn't a problem with Chrome and related browsers is like an IE fan pretending that no-one ever really needed CSS hacks because (insert excuse here). There were numerous complaints about this for several months from practising web developers.
> They have decided not to support h.264 at a time when every developer had to already have implemented a fallback anyway, again its not broken.
If we all have to implement fallbacks anyway, why bother supporting any modern browser features at all?
They had H.264 support. They took it away. That means stuff that used to work in Chrome won't any more. It doesn't matter what words you use to describe that situation, the result is still the same.
You just repeated what I said, yes there are edge cases that are broken, no they are not entirely broken.
> If we all have to implement fallbacks anyway, why bother supporting any modern browser features at all?
because graceful degredation is how the web works, if we enforced every browser implemented every single thing exactly the same way then nothing would ever happen.
since firefox will never have implemented h264, chrome removing it is a step towards a consistent platform, not away from it.
Considering the repeatedly defensive position about ie and bringing up fairly minor points to criticize chrome, plus the fact you replied to this hours after it went of the first few pages, are you really not Elepsis and a microsoft employee?
I criticise Chrome because I don't think their approach is a sustainable one. As it happens, I have been on the wrong side of exactly that bug when it came to a client demo, and apparently what you regard as "not entirely broken" is different to what my paying clients regard as such.
As I told you in the other thread, I have nothing to do with Microsoft. Not everyone who disagrees with you, or indeed with the majority opinion in any given discussion, is a troll/sockpuppet/astroturfer. And this discussion is still on my HN home page right now, never mind when I posted my previous comment several hours ago.
h.264 was never a standard for browsers to implement. It is widely in use, yes, but not a standard. This is why there was such a huge issue over <video>, because Firefox, Opera, and Chrome didn't want h.264 in the standard.
Firefox and Opera have much larger marketshare, and they weren't implementing h.264. It was DOA as a "standard" long before Chrome dropped it.
No, it's not. There is a reason not to implement h.264 - it's patent encumbered and eventually there will be licensing costs that will make free implementations impossible.
There is a difference when company G takes a stand against a bad standard and company M that can't implement simple features correctly despite the fact that it can dedicate humongous resources to its development.
Yes, it is inconvenient, but I'd say it's more justified than the IE inconvenience. They didn't implement h264 because of concerns about how it would restrict distribution, worries about fees, and the fear of another patent encumbered (aka "free") format become standard. Microsoft didn't implement these features pretty much every other browser has because of...what, time constraints?
