And people ask me why I keep calling Chrome the new Internet Explorer.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397158,00.asp is a year old, but its message is still true: "Sure, anyone can make a site that works in Chrome, so it is open in that sense. But if that site only works in Chrome and not in other major browsers, we have a lack of openness in the Web ecosystem."
I wrote a library to abstract the code needed to access the user's webcam through the browser. I had to hold off an experimental launch for around 3 months before I could say it was widely supported, and not just by Chrome.
For experimental stuff, I don't think it's reasonable to hold back like that. It's a great way to check the robustness of an implementation, or the viability of an idea, before it becomes mainstream.
At least I didn't get a "please upgrade to a modern browser" notice in Opera, like an unfortunately high number of Show HN posts have done...
at least for now. :/
The posted link is an example of experiment for measuring whether the new fancy stuff is good enough.
In the dark days of IE era, MS mainly exposed its internal Windows APIs (and security holes) to its browser. (Yeah, there was some truly good stuff too but that doesn't make MS less evil.)
It's the other way around here. All regular markup renders fine on Chrome. However, they are working on future implementations of the standard, so many things you want to use might only work on Chrome or webkit browsers.
Also, Firefox has prefixes that only work on Firefox. You wouldn't call Firefox the new Internet Explorer, would you? Hopefully not, because that would be like calling Chrome the new Internet Explorer.