That's true. Look at Opera for example. In 2013, they decided to drop the Presto engine, not because it was that bad, but because they needed to change things for every page itself, because lot's of things weren't displayed correctly. They switched to chromium and now they are further improving things. Lot's of people are complaining about features that are not present yet and that were there Opera 12, but it was just too bloated, crashed too much and it needed too much work to rewrite everything. They are implementing this again step by step, but the difference is that it is now much much more stable and faster.Firefox is going on the same path right now opera was before they switched the engine. I am not saying they should use chromium or do the same, but they seriously need to think about changing some 'background stuff', and not as I already said working on those extra 'gifts'. Also with the new layout they have (australis), they look newer and more 'up to date' or how do I have to say it, but behind the scenes, it is still the same, old stuff and that's what they also should update, but what they forget at the moment. They look more like chrome now, but in html5 for example or stability, they are way behind.I agree with you entirely.
Firefox is quite an old browser now and i think that mozilla needs to seriously start thinking about building a browser from scratch.
Problem is they intend to implement sandboxing technology into a browser which was not originally designed for this.
Chrome had it easy because it was built from scratch with sandboxing incorporated.
For firefox as it now will be far more difficult.
Thanks Amiga500.On a side note palemoon seems to be going its own way with the implementation of its new rendering engine "goanna.".
On a personal level i see no major difference between how firefox handles html5 and chrome but this is based purely on the use of you-tube only.