"There is a reason the WC3 exists, and it???s not to create tests and standards just to toot its own horn. Browser developers need to take a huge step forward toward standardization so that people don???t need more than one browser installed just to make sure they can get all their work done."
The only version of HTML which browsers can provably adhere to or fail to adhere to is HTML5... you know, the version of HTML that is still being refined and tweaked by the W3C, and the test suites are still being written.
"2: Memory leaks"
This is a Firefox problem, not a Chrome or IE issue. I have left each of those browsers open, often with a few dozens tabs for weeks if not over a month at a time without issue.
"Browsers, regardless of version, need to enjoy the fastest, most reliable performance possible, as they are quickly becoming of the most widely used tools in both business and home."
"There is such a huge discrepancy in how each browser renders, I???m flummoxed as to how developers have yet to jump on the standardization bandwagon to make sure the playing field is leveled."
Where do I begin? HTML deliberately does NOT standardize these things. In fact, HTML doesn't even define a standard style for things. If a browser wants to render the "strong" tag with an underline, it's allowed to. Why? Because the spec never wants to become device-specific. What makes sense for your desktop might not make sense for your phone... or your printer, or a vision-impaired person's text-to-speech software, all of which are considered "rendering devices".
Go use Chrome, problem solved. Here's the way I see it... Chrome is as stripped down as it gets. IE has the bells and whistles (and it shows). Firefox is for folks who want to use IE, but pretend they don't, so they get a bloatware browser and bloat it up some more with add-ons. Incidentally, it's those add-ons which are usually the cause of your memory leaks you are so annoyed with.
"6: Universal plug-ins"
Not the worst idea.
"End users are not always up on the latest add-ons and do not realize that sometimes a browser???s security is only as strong as the configuration they???ve enabled."
You do know that the bulk of the security issues come from the plugins, not the browsers, right? Specifically, Flash, Acrobat, and QuickTime. And you do realize that once an application (a plugin is just an application running inside the browser...) has been installed and authorized to run, the browser has nothing to do with whether or not that application does something dumb, right? The browser vendors, all three of them, are doing a good job at improving security. The plugin folks? Not so much.
"I believe it???s time for browser developers to come up with a different subsystem to handle things that are tasked to cookies. With a more secure, easily managed system of tracking information, browsers will become safer and more reliable."
Do you realize that cookies are a standard? Aren't you all cranked up because browsers need to follow standards better? Yet, when they do, you turn around and complain about them doing that too? And what exactly would you replace cookies with? Cookies are VERY secure. Browsers only report them to the site that placed them in the first place, sites control their expiration, and browsers store the data in locations that are very locked down. What's the problem? How many security exploits are the result of cookie handling?
"9: Browser as ???OS???"
Google is the only vendor doing this right now, but it seems like Microsoft is cribbing some of the ideas for Windows 8. Ugh.
"10: For Linux"
Because Linux distros are overwhelmingly run by people who refuse to bundle anything that doesn't use the GPL, plain and simple. This isn't the browser's fault, and it's not the plugin maker's fault, it's the fault of the Linux distros. Oh, and didn't you earlier say that you want to remove the bloat, and push all of this stuff to plugins? If that's the case, bundling them all up doesn't really help much, does it?
Keep Up with TechRepublic