Jump to content



Photo

Microsoft begs Web devs not to make WebKit the new IE6


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#46 hjf288

hjf288

    Korean Crazy Man!

  • 2,426 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 03
  • Location: United Kingdom

Posted 17 November 2012 - 17:11

If you stopped defending Microsoft for a second you'd see how ridiculous your argument is.

Not seeing, how ironic and hypocritical it is for a company that took the internet a decade back with it's crap browser and it's proprietary practices while abusing monopoly (that's why other browsers couldn't penetrate their dominance), trying to present themselves as champions of "standards" and warning how open source browser engine is somehow bad, while at the same time trying to lock down Windows as much as possible, is hilarious at best.

And yes, they are such huge supporters of what's good for everyone while they deliberately refuse to support WebGL (when everyone else has) instead of peddling their own proprietary DirectX.

Not to mention that saying that if it wasn't for Microsoft we wouldn't have hardware accelerated browsers is just plain nonsense. Webkit was actually the first browser engine who introduced hardware accelerated support when Apple released the very first iPhone.

They need to shut the hell up and let IE die because Microsoft has proven how good they are for the web and while IE10 might be solid now, knowing what Microsoft is like this won't last long and they will continue trying to abuse anything they can to push their own proprietary approach.


Oh this is hilarious and with the graphs out of thin air with no reference, and made up % market shares...

Boz you have no credibility with the Apple boys, now you are doing the same with the Microsoft... You really should just stop arguing for arguing sake because you look silly doing so.


#47 LaP

LaP

    Forget about it

  • 6,224 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 06
  • Location: Quebec City, Canada
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro Update 1

Posted 17 November 2012 - 17:12

Web devs should make web sites that validate according the the w3c standard and then if the sites don't display properly on a browser the devs should not care and let the creator of the browser works on making his browser compatible with the standard.

Sadly the world is a not a perfect place ... i'm not really knowledgable about mobile web sites as i'm not working on those for my cie (other devs do). But i can tell you zoom:1 and height:1% are still sadly very popular i see them often while technically i should not.

I think i tell my project manager once a year that if ie7 doesn't display a web site properly we should just tell our clients to upgrade or simply get the content as is cause in the end getting the content is what is important the rest is just eye candy. The same should apply to mobile webkit if it is not standard compliant.

#48 Nooomak

Nooomak

    Resident One Post Wonder

  • 1 posts
  • Joined: 11-November 12

Posted 17 November 2012 - 17:14

"Lazy coding"?

#49 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

  • 6,069 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 17 November 2012 - 17:14

No, that doesn't make it a standard, it just makes it a marginally popular engine.

Browser usage on Windows 8 surpassed Android in a couple of days so it's clear that mobile browsing is currently irrelevant. The majority of people are using non-webkit based browsers. Even if webkit's numbers exceed the 50% mark in the next couple of years a significant number of people will continue to use non-webkit based browsers for years to come.


An even greater majority of people are using non Trident based browsers. Around 62% of all users now use non Trident based browsers,(so Microsoft's argument that the web should be tailored to suit their browser is still silly). a higher percentage than those not using Webkit based browsers. Isn't it great when we skew stats to fit our agenda?

#50 Thingol

Thingol

    Neowinian

  • 75 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12
  • Location: Turkey

Posted 17 November 2012 - 17:18

You reap what you sow ha, Microsoft :)

I think they deserved it.

#51 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,480 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 17 November 2012 - 17:26

Posted Image

Sorry to be the spanner in the works but Chrome still has superior HTML5 support


Which is the end of the argument right here

Btw, mine is a bit less cause I'm not using nightly but using the latest public version of Chrome (like 90% of other Chrome users) since Chrome and Safari and Firefox update their browsers transparently to the latest version so fragmentation is minimal or non-existant.

Posted Image


So not only IE10 sucks ass in HTML5 render test, IE will always be fragmented because of Microsoft and how they approach updates and due to their proprietary nature.

Btw, Webkit browsers top HTML5 test charts

Posted Image

#52 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

  • 6,069 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 17 November 2012 - 17:29

448 is still great for the stable channel, it shows how superior Chrome's HTML5 support is.

#53 +Seahorsepip

Seahorsepip

    http://seapip.com

  • 1,716 posts
  • Joined: 23-January 11
  • Location: Netherlands
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 17 November 2012 - 17:37

IE10 is very good compared to it's predecessors :p
But Firefox is still the best if it's about css following W3C :D

I always have to make custom css stylesheets or css hacks for chrome and IE10 to work correctly as they should, as example chrome positions a absolute element ignoring the borders of its parent compared to firefox who follows those borders.
Also css3 animations are buggy on chrome compared to firefox, especially 3d ones :/

Worst about chrome is that they still add a outline on input elements, wtf?


On the other hand chrome is way better in rendering speed.


And Opera is horrible, css is always not functioning right, it doesn't accept ~ and + in all circumstances, labels and checkboxes can't be moved in seperate places in html files because they don't work in that case etc etc.

#54 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • 3,041 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 17 November 2012 - 17:37

But it doesn't matter guys, Google has a history of spying on their users, so in future versions Chrome might steal your bank details!!!!!111

I always have to make custom css stylesheets or css hacks for chrome and IE10 to work correctly as they should, as example chrome positions a absolute element ignoring the borders of its parent compared to firefox who follows those borders.
Also css3 animations are buggy on chrome compared to firefox, especially 3d ones :/

Worst about chrome is that they still add a outline on input elements, wtf?


I can concur here, in my personal experience as a webdev, Webkit has probably the buggiest implementation of various standards. Personally I put it down to a focus on tickboxing to win over the clueless non-developers, rather than having solid, compliant implementations.

#55 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,884 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900 / Oneplus One

Posted 17 November 2012 - 17:43

Btw, mine is a bit less cause I'm not using nightly but using the latest public version of Chrome (like 90% of other Chrome users) since Chrome and Safari and Firefox update their browsers transparently to the latest version so fragmentation is minimal or non-existant.


1. That site tests stuff that isn't part of the HTML5 standard. It may become part of it in the future but it isn't yet.

2. You know what I find funny Boz? In pretty much every single thread about HTML5 you claim how useless it is, what a waste of time it is, how Apple is idiotic for supporting it etc etc etc. And now since supporting HTML5 suits your argument (Google is the best) you're all for it. Amazing, such a remarkable turn around.

3. You claim that Microsoft is idiotic for supporting DirectX over WebGL because is proprietary crap. But then in every single other thread you promote flash and claim it's so much better than WebGL. Last I checked Flash was just as proprietary as DirectX is.

4. You claim that since Webkit has 90% marketshare in mobile and a majority in desktop (may be true who knows) it's a standard right? Well then 10 years ago Microsoft had close to 100% marketshare with IE. So according to your logic, IE6 should have been the standard and all other browsers should have just died out. Flawless, absolutely flawless logic there.

#56 +Seahorsepip

Seahorsepip

    http://seapip.com

  • 1,716 posts
  • Joined: 23-January 11
  • Location: Netherlands
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 17 November 2012 - 17:46

steal your bank details!!!!!111

Posted Image

I can concur here, in my personal experience as a webdev, Webkit has probably the buggiest implementation of various standards. Personally I put it down to a focus on tickboxing to win over the clueless non-developers, rather than having solid, compliant implementations.

Yeah it's really messy with css3, hopefully it improves one day :/

#57 Nashy

Nashy

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,081 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 04
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S5 - SM-G900i

Posted 17 November 2012 - 17:58

So what's the deal with IE6? What was so special about it? I don't understand.


It was very, very old and wasn't up to date with HTML and CSS standards. Because it was so widely adopted for such a long time, you had to spend a lot of time, and create a lot more code to get a website to work on IE6 and function correctly.

I don't necessarily think it was a bad browser, it did it's job for it's time, it just should have been updated long before IE7, and adoption rates needed to be higher and faster than they were. Some companies STILL use it.

#58 Mathiasdm

Mathiasdm

    Neowinian

  • 1,330 posts
  • Joined: 26-November 04

Posted 17 November 2012 - 18:07

It looks like this is not really about WebKit causing problems. It's developers making the mistake of only putting a WebKit prefix in.
Like others have said before in this thread, this can be handled using several cross-browser libraries.
An example tool: http://leaverou.github.com/prefixfree/

Additionally, the use of these prefixes is in fact not bad (as long as you have a decent fallback). Here are some actual arguments: http://www.alistapar...ix-or-posthack/

#59 jakem1

jakem1

    Neowinian Senior

  • 6,674 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 06

Posted 17 November 2012 - 18:45

If you stopped defending Microsoft for a second you'd see how ridiculous your argument is. Not seeing, how ironic and hypocritical it is for a company that took the internet a decade back with it's crap browser and it's proprietary practices while abusing monopoly (that's why other browsers couldn't penetrate their dominance), trying to present themselves as champions of "standards" and warning how open source browser engine is somehow bad, while at the same time trying to lock down Windows as much as possible, is hilarious at best. And yes, they are such huge supporters of what's good for everyone while they deliberately refuse to support WebGL (when everyone else has) instead of peddling their own proprietary DirectX. Not to mention that saying that if it wasn't for Microsoft we wouldn't have hardware accelerated browsers is just plain nonsense. Webkit was actually the first browser engine who introduced hardware accelerated support when Apple released the very first iPhone. They need to shut the hell up and let IE die because Microsoft has proven how good they are for the web and while IE10 might be solid now, knowing what Microsoft is like this won't last long and they will continue trying to abuse anything they can to push their own proprietary approach.


I'm not defending MS, just common sense. The past is the past and Microsoft have clearly embraced web standards so it's pointless dredging up old mistakes (especially since you seem to be happy to see webkit and web developers repeat them).

As for webgl, I'd rather have secure computers than an unnecessary, buggy, non-standard attack vector for hackers. Besides, using your argument, surely DirectX is a standard given the fact that it's on 95% of the worlds PCs and is supported by most graphics chips so why doesn't Chrome support it ;)

Frankly, your argument is pathetic and it's sad to see you defend the interests of corporations like Google over web users.

#60 Lord Method Man

Lord Method Man

    Banned

  • 3,758 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 12

Posted 17 November 2012 - 18:51

WebGL is such a gaping security hole that I'm glad to be running a browser that doesn't support it. Any browser that allows web code to directly access my hardware with no managed API isn't coming anywhere near my system.