People used to build websites and tweak them for a particular browser. They'd use tags that only worked with one browser, or attributes that worked better with one browser than another.
They'd then stick a little graphic on the page saying "This site works best in [Browser name]"; often with a download link.
When Nux says "Seems like we're going back to "Built for Internet Explorer" days." I guess they're saying "It seems that we're going back to a time when people tweaked their websites to work with a particular browser, rather than concentrating on standards compliant code and cross browser compatibility".
Well, these days, I write a website using web standards, it works great in Chrome, Firefox, and IE10, except for one CSS style that IE doesn't support, ruining it for IE10 users. And so I unintentionally end up creating something only usable in Chrome or Firefox.
Comments
Why would you say that? The author said them self that this works best in Safari and Chrome.
http://static.echonest.com/InfiniteGangnamStyle/faq.html
People used to build websites and tweak them for a particular browser. They'd use tags that only worked with one browser, or attributes that worked better with one browser than another.
They'd then stick a little graphic on the page saying "This site works best in [Browser name]"; often with a download link.
When Nux says "Seems like we're going back to "Built for Internet Explorer" days." I guess they're saying "It seems that we're going back to a time when people tweaked their websites to work with a particular browser, rather than concentrating on standards compliant code and cross browser compatibility".
Well, these days, I write a website using web standards, it works great in Chrome, Firefox, and IE10, except for one CSS style that IE doesn't support, ruining it for IE10 users. And so I unintentionally end up creating something only usable in Chrome or Firefox.