java内嵌mozilla
This is a surprise. Mozilla has slammed Chrome Frame, the Google plugin that fixes Internet Explorer by providing the Chrome browser engine within the IE interface. Google decided that it was easier to create an IE plugin than make their new HTML5 applications backward-compatible with IE6, IE7 and IE8.
这是一个惊喜。 Mozilla抨击了Chrome Frame ，它是Google插件，通过在IE界面内提供Chrome浏览器引擎来修复 Internet Explorer。 Google认为，创建IE插件要比使其新HTML5应用程序向后兼容IE6，IE7和IE8容易。
Mitchell Baker, chairman of the Mozilla Foundation and former Mozilla CEO questioned the decision for the plugin:
Mozilla基金会主席兼Mozilla前首席执行官Mitchell Baker对插件的决定提出了质疑：
The overall effects of Chrome Frame are undesirable.
Chrome框架的整体效果令人不快。
I predict positive results will not be enduring and — and to the extent it is adopted — Chrome Frame will end in growing fragmentation and loss of control for most of us, including Web developers.
我预计，积极的结果将不会持久，而且-在一定程度上被采用-Chrome框架将最终导致我们大多数人(包括Web开发人员)越来越分散，失去控制。
But Chrome Frame’s biggest problem is that it cedes control to the site, not the person surfing. And that will just confuse users. Once your browser has fragmented into multiple rendering engines, it’s very hard to manage information across Web sites. Some information will be manageable from the browser you use and some information from Chrome Frame. This defeats one of the most important ways in which a browser can help people manage their experience.
但是Chrome Frame的最大问题是，它把控制权交给了网站，而不是上网的人。 这只会使用户感到困惑。 一旦您的浏览器分为多个渲染引擎，就很难跨网站管理信息。 某些信息可以通过您使用的浏览器进行管理，而某些信息则可以通过Chrome Frame进行管理。 这破坏了浏览器可以帮助人们管理其体验的最重要方式之一。
Imagine having the Google browser-within-a-browser for some sites, the Facebook browser-within-a-browser for Facebook Connect sites, the Apple variant for iTunes, the mobile-carrier variant for your mobile sites.
想象一下，对于某些站点，它具有浏览器内的Google浏览器，对于Facebook Connect站点具有内浏览器的Facebook浏览器，对于iTunes的Apple变体，对于您的移动站点的移动运营商变体。
Each browser-within-a-browser variant will have its own feature set, its own quirks, and its own security problems. The result is a sort of browser-soup, where the Web is less knowable, less understandable and certainly less manageable.
每个浏览器内的浏览器变体都有其自己的功能集，其怪癖和安全性问题。 结果是某种浏览器的汤，在这种情况下，Web的知名度，了解度和可管理性均较差。
Mike Shaver, Mozilla’s vice president of engineering added:
Mozilla工程副总裁Mike Shaver补充说：
The user’s understanding of the Web’s security model and the behavior of their browser is seriously hindered by delegating the choice of software to the developers of individual sites they visit. It is a problem that we have seen repeatedly with other stack plugins like Flash, Silverlight and Java, and not one that I think we need to see replayed again under the banner of HTML 5.
通过将软件选择委托给他们访问的各个站点的开发人员，严重阻碍了用户对Web安全模型和浏览器行为的理解。 我们在Flash，Silverlight和Java之类的其他堆栈插件中屡屡遇到这个问题，而我认为我们不需要再以HTML 5的旗帜重播这个问题。
It would be better for the Web if developers who want to use the Chrome Frame snippet simply told users that their site worked better in Chrome, and instructed them on how to install it.
如果想要使用Chrome浏览器内嵌框架代码段的开发人员只是简单地告诉用户他们的网站在Chrome浏览器中可以更好地工作，并指导他们如何安装它，则对Web更好。
It’s taken long enough for the industry to adopt web standards, so Mozilla’s concerns about fragmentation and web sites adopting their own browser plugins is valid. In an ideal world, web developers should never need a plugin and HTML5 goes some way to achieving that dream.
行业采用Web标准已经花费了很长时间，因此Mozilla对碎片化和网站采用自己的浏览器插件的担忧是正确的。 在理想的世界中，Web开发人员永远不需要插件，HTML5可以通过某种方式实现这一梦想。
However, the introduction of Chrome Frame will not necessarily open the floodgates for site-specific plugins. Google’s goal is to allow IE users to access modern web applications in situations when they will not or can not use an alternative browser. The plug-in integrates well with IE: favorites, history, and cookies are shared so few users will realize they’ve switched to Chrome’s view.
但是，Chrome Frame的引入并不一定会打开特定于站点的插件的闸门。 Google的目标是允许IE用户在无法使用或无法使用其他浏览器的情况下访问现代Web应用程序。 该插件可与IE很好地集成：可以共享收藏夹，历史记录和Cookie，因此很少有用户会意识到他们已切换到Chrome的视图。
I hope we never encounter the situation where web sites can specify which browser engine should be used (a possibility Microsoft investigated). Many would say that’s exactly what Chrome Frame’s doing, but Google’s passive implementation is more like a DOCTYPE switch between standards and quirks mode. (Actually, Google, that’s not a bad idea — if the user visits an HTML5 page, the browser could automatically switch to Chrome).
我希望我们永远不会遇到这样的情况：网站可以指定应使用哪个浏览器引擎( Microsoft调查了这种可能性 )。 许多人会说这正是Chrome Frame的功能，但是Google的被动实现更像是在标准模式和怪异模式之间进行的DOCTYPE切换。 (实际上，对于Google来说，这不是一个坏主意-如果用户访问HTML5页面，则浏览器可以自动切换到Chrome)。
We should also note that Mozilla is an open source organization and can take the moral high-ground. They encouraged Firefox adoption by producing a better browser than Microsoft. Google are a commercial company that primarily creates web applications; their ambitions and future profits could be hindered by IE and it’s sedate progress.
我们还应该注意，Mozilla是一个开源组织，可以在道德上占据上风。 他们通过生产比微软更好的浏览器来鼓励Firefox的采用。 Google是一家主要创建Web应用程序的商业公司； 他们的野心和未来的利润可能会受到IE的阻碍，并且它的发展是不可或缺的。
Mozilla’s statements puts the company on the same side as Microsoft (who also slammed Chrome Frame but did so less eloquently!) Mozilla has made some interesting points, but their concerns are hypothetical and a little over-reactive. We all want corporations and users to upgrade to the latest browsers but it’s not happened at the pace we’d like. Chrome Frame is a clever short-term solution that could help the adoption of HTML5.
Mozilla的声明使该公司与Microsoft(后者也抨击了Chrome Frame，但口才这么低！)的立场相同。Mozilla提出了一些有趣的观点，但他们的担忧是假设性的，并且React过度。 我们都希望公司和用户升级到最新的浏览器，但是这并不是我们想要的速度。 Chrome浏览器内嵌框架是一个聪明的短期解决方案，可以帮助采用HTML5。
What do you think? Are Mozilla’s criticisms valid? Could Chrome Frame fragment the web?
你怎么看？ Mozilla的批评是否有效？ Chrome浏览器内嵌框架会在网络上造成碎片吗？
翻译自: https://www.sitepoint.com/mozilla-microsoft-slam-google-chrome-frame/
java内嵌mozilla
