The problem with IE6 was not that users didn't update. It was that IE created a monoculture among developers, using IE only features. Which resulted in code which got out on the web, and stayed there.

And then every browser had to either 1. be "broken" because the web-pages didn't work, or 2. forego W3C, standard-process and all that and emulate IE's bugs in order to be "real" browsers people could use.

And long after IE6 is gone, all that is still hanging around, causing issues to this day.

Right now we're getting a Chrome monoculture. People are using pre-standard Chrome and Webkit only features in production websites. In the future those websites will stick around, no matter if Chrome users update their browsers or not.

Chrome is the new IE. With Google giving a shit about real standardization, launching non-standard features in Chrome and production websites at the same time, they are the new Microsoft.

> launching non-standard features in Chrome and production websites at the same time, they are the new Microsoft.

Are there any features they are pushing in Chrome they are simultaneously not pushing on w3c to adopt? The problem with IE6 is that it not only did its own thing, it did the opposite thing the standard said to do. If Chrome is just standard + new stuff, and that new stuff eventually becomes standard, it isn't a problem. But its standard + new stuff + anti-standard bullshit, the latter is the issue and Google should be criticized for it.

The only way new features seem to get into the standards is if some browser starts offering it, and it gains so much traction that the standards bodies can't ignore it.

Web standards seem, from where I'm standing, to be very post-hoc.

Indeed, I think that's the way it ought to be. How many times has it worked out well when you've fully specified something, before you attempt to actually build it? For me that number is very close to 0.

I think this is the intent. A proposal is brought to TC39. It gets discussed. Someone champion's it (implements it in the wild). Adoption and usefulness are determined. New standards are accepted.

I think this is a much better practice than a bunch of dudes just deciding what browsers will support and how they support it without actually trying it on first.

It's pretty much all in the open. No need for conspiracy theories. The environment is significantly different than it was during the early IE days.

https://github.com/tc39/ecma262

I should have been more specific in what I mean by "IE6 situation". I was talking mostly about the years 2005-2008 when IE had already won the browser wars and despite a new and better browser (Firefox in this case) already existed, users couldn't switch to it (because ActiveX, because VML, ...) and developers couldn't [care to] stop using IE-only stuff, because everyone was using IE anyway. The current Chrome situation is more or less the same now.

The non-updating users problem is a bit different. I guess it had quite a contribution to the problem discussed above (e.g. if Microsoft had a good mechanism to switch most of IE6 users to 7, they might have made 7 a better - less "compatible" - browser).

And Chrome's great upgrade mechanism is one of the reasons I think the Chrome situation will be even harder to overcome. IE6 became so old and ridiculously bad that some sites stopped providing first-class user experience to it's users, so that users had to do something - upgrade. The same think won't probably happen to Chrome, because:

1. Google probably remembers Microsoft's history and will try to avoid the same mistakes.

2. They have an automated mechanism to keep Chrome updated.

And as long as they keep gmail and facebook working great in Chrome (and - ideally - worse in every other browser), they are safe.

I guess this is even good for the users - uniformly good user experience on all devices. Though - of course - if you don't mind exposing every detail of your online life to Google. http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nobody_cares

What you are looking at there is that MS decided to shoot themselves in the foot over and over by tying things like the latest IE or DirectX to a specific version of Windows.

End result is that the last version that shipped on XP became the lowest common denominator.

Maybe I read it the wrong way, but by "another IE6 situation", I took the comment to mean that Firefox is the new IE6, likening Chrome's position to Firefox's at the time.

You have a lot of new stuff being designed & tested using Chrome, with some site breakage if using Firefox. Similar to several years ago when releasing sites that "work best with Firefox" (complete with badge images stating such), leaving IE6 users with a lesser experience.