1. 15
  1.  

  2. 4

    It gets worse. WebKit has specific quirks hardcoded for specific sites like YouTube, Google Maps, Twitter, and the NY Times. So websites can behave differently depending on the browser, and browsers can behave differently depending on the website. It’s a mess!

    Imagine being a developer at a company whose web site behaves differently when it’s running on a development server compared to a production server, with absolutely no changes in the code. You might not even know WHY your site is singled out since WebKit bugs are mostly kept secret.

    (Firefox and Chrome do not seem to have any hard-coded behaviors for specific sites though.)

    1. 2

      Yeah I mentioned that in the post I thought.. Definitely in the linked podcast. I have been that person. Firefox does and multiple chromium browsers at least do

    2. 1

      I remember Don Melton bitching about how hard it was to define the initial UA string for Safari when it launched in 2002. Lots of little tweaks, each of which made some important must-support websites work correctly but broke others.

      (BTW I doubt the article’s claim that terminal-mode browsers like Lynx had significant effect on Web adoption. Not everyone had a Web-capable GUI in the mid-90s, but the people who didn’t were overwhelmingly running Windows 3.1 or DOS, and I don’t remember there being a version of Lynx for DOS. Besides, the tech-savvy early adopters who actually got online on the WWW that early were also the same early adopters of Windows 95. Meanwhile, the people in academia mostly had their Sun/Apollo/SGI/NeXT/whatever workstations running X.)

      1. 1

        You didn’t need a Lynx for MS-DOS. A lot of people were using shell accounts in those days, running Lynx on their ISP’s or university’s host.