> If there's a better article, we can change it again.
There's not a better article. I think people are mainly confused by the title of the article.
There are 2 different links to mozilla.org with background info in the first 3 sentences of the article, so it seems like people just aren't clicking those links.
To me, it's clear that the intention of the article is primarily to criticize Google and Chrome, with a contrast to the behavior of Mozilla and Firefox. Which is why the title can be a bit confusing, and people are expecting a long explanation of what Firefox did, when the point is really that Google could and ought to do better.
There's not a better article. I think people are mainly confused by the title of the article.
There are 2 different links to mozilla.org with background info in the first 3 sentences of the article, so it seems like people just aren't clicking those links.
To me, it's clear that the intention of the article is primarily to criticize Google and Chrome, with a contrast to the behavior of Mozilla and Firefox. Which is why the title can be a bit confusing, and people are expecting a long explanation of what Firefox did, when the point is really that Google could and ought to do better.