是否可以使用 Google-Chrome-Frame 来节省开发时间/金钱，使应用程序适用于 IE？
假设我外包了一个仅针对现代浏览器的 HTML/JS/CSS/AJAX Web 应用程序的开发。如果重要的话，假设在创建应用程序时使用了 20 个独特的模板（以了解该应用程序的大小）。我的理解是，需要花费大量时间/金钱来手动调整代码以使其在浏览器之间保持一致。我对最小化这笔费用的方法感兴趣。
截至 2011 年 6 月，Google Chrome Frame 宣称用户无需管理员权限即可下载和安装 IE 6-9，本质上是将 Chrome 作为 IE 内部的插件运行，以避免浏览器与 IE 不兼容的问题（替代潜在的兼容性） Chrome的问题应该比IE少很多）。
如果我指示开发人员仅针对不含 IE 的现代浏览器，要求所有 IE 用户下载 Chrome Frame，这条路径是否会节省大量开发成本/时间？ （我的用户是工程师，可能愿意接受这种权衡，因为其他地方没有提供此应用程序。）我只是不知道 IE 与其他（现代）浏览器相比付出了多少努力，并且想知道是否有人拥有经验可以评论这是否很赚钱（双关语）或只是疯狂。
另外，这样做有什么缺点吗？
Let's say I outsource the development of an HTML/JS/CSS/AJAX web app targeting ONLY modern browsers. If it matters, assume there are 20 unique templates used in creating the application (to give an idea of the size of this application). My understanding is that much time/money is spent hand tweaking the code to make it consistent among browsers. I'm interested in ways to minimize this expense.
As of June 2011, Google Chrome Frame is advertised to not require administrator privileges for the user to download and install for IE 6-9, which essentially runs Chrome as a plug-in inside IE to avoid browser incompatibility issues with IE (substituting potential compatibility problems with Chrome, which should be much less than IE).
If I were to direct the developers to target only modern browsers minus IE, requiring all IE users to download Chrome Frame instead, would this path translate into any significant development cost/time savings? (My users are engineers and may be willing to accept this tradeoff since this application is not offered elsewhere.) I just don't have a feel for how much effort is made for IE versus other (modern) browsers, and wondered if anyone with experience could comment whether this makes cents (pun intended) or is simply crazy.
Also, any downside to doing this?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
您将节省时间和金钱。我为我们的内部应用程序做了类似的事情。该网站仅在 webkit 浏览器（chrome 和 safary）上运行。
我们节省了大量的时间，因为 css 和 JavaScript 可以更加高效，而且最重要的是，我们不必在 6 个不同的浏览器上测试每个更改。这是非常解放的。
如果您的用户允许您排除 IE，我推荐您这样做。
You will save time and money. I have done something similar for our in-house application. The site runs only on webkit browsers (chrome and safary).
We save a log of time, because the css and JavaScript can be more efficient, and most importantly, we do not have to test every change on 6 different browsers. This is very liberating.
If your users allow you to exclude IE, i recommend it.
这完全取决于您的应用程序和开发人员。有了足够的知识，就可以编写代码，甚至不需要在 IE 中检查，直到最后，只需记住它，并且在 ie8-9 中达到预期的 99%，在 ie6-7 中达到 80%。
如果你的用户是工程师，我很难想象他们首先使用 ie，即使这样也绝对不是 ie6/7。
这是给你的一点 ie9 促销:)
http://varonasf.com/ie69/
（仅适用于正常的浏览器）
It all depends on your application and developers. With enough knowledge it's possible to write code without even checking in IE until the end but only keeping it in mind and have 99% of things as expected in ie8-9, 80% in ie6-7.
If your users are engineers I can hardly imagine them using ie in the first place and even if so definitely not ie6/7.
Even if you don't go with Chrome-frame, given above points, if you're willing to go with slight to mild visual design degradation you can get away without specifically targeting ie...
Here's a little ie9 promo for ya :)
http://varonasf.com/ie69/
(only works in decent browsers)
这是 Google Frame 背后的设计决策。您始终可以选择要么针对最低公分母（即 IE6）进行设计并拥有有限的功能网站，要么针对合理的 HTML 5 标准进行设计并迫使用户升级。
http://blog.chromium.org/2010 /09/google-chrome-frame-stable-and-speedy.html
This is the design decision behind Google Frame. You always have the choice of either designing for the lowest common denominator, i.e. IE6, and having a limited function site, or designing for a reasonable HTML 5 standard and forcing users to upgrade.
http://blog.chromium.org/2010/09/google-chrome-frame-stable-and-speedy.html