I can't really say I understand why "fragmentation" is a problem.
HTML5, CSS3, and ECMAScript are all standards that don't change very frequently. Not all browsers support them equally, but I thought we were trying to get away from caring about that. I haven't seen a "this site is designed for X" (X being some browser, usually IE or Netscape back when this practice was popular) badge in quite a few years. To me it seems that this strong competition amongst browser developers to compete for features and updates has been influencing web developers to bring back this bygone era. Is that really where web developers want to go again?
"Fragmentation" to me isn't an issue. A user shouldn't have to trust your code implicitly always and forever. If they don't want your shiny new features, they should be able to download an earlier version and stick with it.
Also, as mentioned elsewhere -- distro's might take issue with this sort of scheme.
To me it seems more like a competition with Chrome than a technical choice.
HTML5, CSS3, and ECMAScript are all standards that don't change very frequently. Not all browsers support them equally, but I thought we were trying to get away from caring about that. I haven't seen a "this site is designed for X" (X being some browser, usually IE or Netscape back when this practice was popular) badge in quite a few years. To me it seems that this strong competition amongst browser developers to compete for features and updates has been influencing web developers to bring back this bygone era. Is that really where web developers want to go again?
"Fragmentation" to me isn't an issue. A user shouldn't have to trust your code implicitly always and forever. If they don't want your shiny new features, they should be able to download an earlier version and stick with it.
Also, as mentioned elsewhere -- distro's might take issue with this sort of scheme.
To me it seems more like a competition with Chrome than a technical choice.