157 posts in this topic

Prefixes also allow people to do w/e the hell they want.

To add certain specific features to their platform maybe (You wouldn't have to use them) but the core is the same unlike what we have now where everything varies wildly from browser to browser..

My logic is perfectly valid. It would be far far better than what we have now. Not to mention that it isn't logical that if everyone switched to Webkit they would do that really because what would be the point of switching to Webkit. That's the whole POINT of switching to webkit. To unify under one engine and contribute to the same code base.

Of course it doesn't but it is Boz. If it involves webkit or Google, they're always right and it's always the best thing in the world. Anyone who says otherwise is dumb :rolleyes:

Instead what we should do is completely just roll over and let Google control our lives and be our God.

I like how his logic is Chrome's V8/Webkit engine are the best in the world so everyone should use it. There was a time when Microsoft's trident engine was the best in the world, why didn't everyone use it then? There was a time when Gecko was the best, everyone should have used it then too :rolleyes:

How about you stop calling me out personally and share you opinions. If you can't discuss without personal attacks then don't post on the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To add certain specific features to their platform maybe (You wouldn't have to use them) but the core is the same unlike what we have now where everything varies wildly from browser to browser..

If browsers followed standards then things wouldn't vary as much.

But like I and others have pointed out several times now webkit prefixes are causing things to vary wildly. So what's your solution? Oh everyone should use webkit. What an amazing solution.

How about you stop calling me out personally and share you opinions. If you can't discuss without personal attacks then don't post on the topic.

The problem is there's no point in discussing stuff with you since you're incredibly biased.

If Apple, Microsoft or any other company do something they're wrong for doing that (and in some cases I'd agree with you). If Google then goes and does the exact same thing it's perfectly fine and Google should continue doing it.

You yourself said that since Google's engine is the best everyone should use it. Were you saying that everyone should use Trident, Gecko and Presto when they were the best? If not why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just have to stick the last version of Presto, I've used Opera since around 2003 and I've never had any malware, viruses etc. even when I tried, since forcing my family to use Opera I haven't had to go around and fix there computers in ages, Opera is THE safest browser out there, I think it's such a shame but I can see why they feel they need to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nonsense for several reasons..

1. First, we have proof.. as in REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE that webkit browsers on mobile iOS/Android work MUCH better and developing for mobile web is far easier than for desktop due to almost no fragmentation. Yes, Apple introduced a couple of unique webkit prefixes on Safari for mobile but those are really not a big deal as you don't have to use them. They extend functionality and give some thing for iOS platform. You can still completely avoid using them and have the same code running on both Android and iOS.

So this whole "forking" notion is completely ridiculous. Everyone who joins Chromium/Webkit wouldn't really make it wildly incompatible because it's not in anyone's interest. That's why they switch to Webkit.

2. Webkit/Chromium support web standards better than any of the other browsers

inJt

So I don't know what the hell are people talking about "This site works with IE only" nonsense.

If everyone would join webkit there would be no need for that at all. We have THAT scenario now because of the incredible fragmentation among browsers.

Whatever your build for webkit based browsers on desktop works the same on all of them. It's beautiful.

You do understand that there is a HUGE difference between Microsoft and their proprietary browser they wanted to use to control the web and the open source browser that is one of the best web standards compliant browsers and is used by multiple companies making browsers.

In what world is this the same.

HTML5Test, seriously? You use that to prove a point? Let's not mention that a big part of the test doesn't test HTML5, and gives bonus-points for supporting stuff that isn't the standard at all! Also, supporting a feature doesn't mean it is according the standard.

Anyway, if you want fast innovation, than I gues you like Internet Explorer 6 very much. Because, back than, IE6 was the same as Webkit is right now. Yes, meet the new IE6: Webkit. It's na?ve to think the web is better with 1 render engine, and you should know that, because we already have done this before with IE6. Fragmentation is stupid, everywhere, everywhere but browsers. It's important there are multiple render engines, it's important there are multiple browser. All with a significant part of market share. Webkit is now to big, look at mobile devices. Mobile websites doesn't work in Internet Explorer mobile or Firefox mobile, and that's a bad thing. It's not IE & FF problem, it's our, it's Webkit.

Webkit doesn't support the standard at all. It doesn't matter if it's open source or not, there are still people behind it that decide and they DO stuppid things. For example, gradients still don't work on Webkit as it is discriped in the standards. You need to use -webkit-, and that can't be how it should work. Webkit is taking over the internet, and that's not good at all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Webkit doesn't support the standard at all.

Yeah.. your whole argument fell apart with this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.. your whole argument fell apart with this

How that, Google (and Apple) keeps adding stuff to Webkit that they created byy their own, stuff that's patentated, preventing others to use it too. Fox exapmle, touch, Microsofts implementation will become the standard (Apple, Mozilla, etc. are behind them). And what does Google? Create their own one, put some patents on it, implementate it. And than you break the standards. My previous example is another point for that. 'gradient' is proper CSS3, every browser support it, except Webkit-based, they need '-webkit-gradient'. The worst thing of all is, most web developers only use the one for webkit instead of the one that's realy part of the standard. So, I don't so how that broked my argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.. your whole argument fell apart with this

Except he's completely right.

I challenge you Boz, make Chrome render a CSS3 gradient without using vendor prefixed properties, then go try in the latest versions of IE and Firefox.

If you fail to respond to this challenge, then I think we can safely say you're not interested in standards, and only want a closed, proprietary Google dictatorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except he's completely right.

I challenge you Boz, make Chrome render a CSS3 gradient without using vendor prefixed properties, then go try in the latest versions of IE and Firefox.

If you fail to respond to this challenge, then I think we can safely say you're not interested in standards, and only want a closed, proprietary Google dictatorship.

Are gradients in CSS a set standard yet? I think you'll find they're just a candidate and not a formal recommendation yet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are gradients in CSS a set standard yet? I think you'll find they're just a candidate and not a formal recommendation yet...

I think you'll also find CSS 2.1 itself only became a recommendation in 2011. Candidate recommendation status is essentially final as far as practical implementation is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait so now, opera will just be another chrome skin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait so now, opera will just be another chrome skin?

I guess no more than Chrome is a Safari skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess no more than Chrome is a Safari skin.

Yeah for some reason I forgot about that, brain fart sorry... I just figured OH TEH NOES!!! Opera is using the same thin as Chrome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if all browsers adopt Webkit then why have standards at all and just use one browser?

Since Webkit is open source that means we could possibly have an IE6 issue again. Because they can all

modify what they want and fork the source and we are back to square one.

Standards are needed and they are needed to be tested against. I am using webkit now with Chrome,

but honestly I think that everyone using webkit as the standard engine for a web browser is just dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll also find CSS 2.1 itself only became a recommendation in 2011. Candidate recommendation status is essentially final as far as practical implementation is concerned.

"essentially". But the whole discussion here is about set standards.

So, if all browsers adopt Webkit then why have standards at all and just use one browser?

Since Webkit is open source that means we could possibly have an IE6 issue again. Because they can all

modify what they want and fork the source and we are back to square one.

Standards are needed and they are needed to be tested against. I am using webkit now with Chrome,

but honestly I think that everyone using webkit as the standard engine for a web browser is just dumb.

I'd just be happy with a "standard/reference render" that is the core basis to work from and defines how all current standards are to be applied. You could still have other browsers doing their own thing if they want. They could just be ignored where necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the W3C and how it handled standards has always been one of the root problems. They take way too long to make progress to anything reasonable for it to be implemented.

As for the whole Webkit thing, using one rendering engine and making it the standard is exactly what happened with IE6. Open source has no bearing on the situation. Developers often reinvent the wheel to do it better and you are taking that away from a developer because all websites will start coding to Webkit bugs thinking it is the standard when it is not.

I love the concept about web development pain (I am one) will be magically solved by this...no. The problem in the web development world is the W3C to start and testing standards. Look at H.264 as a great example. It is a standard that has defined feature sets for what it can do. An implementation is created of an encoder and a decoder. All implementations must be able to render the image exactly, but can use different ways to get there. There is a great open source encoder that is very powerful and several commercial ones. On the decoder side, we had CoreAVC, FFDshow, LAV Filters, PowerDVD, etc. all using different rendering engines to produce the same results. CoreAVC was the fastest and most efficient over 5 yrs ago, now days its not an issue. You don't have any of the same kind of problems with these guys. Why? I bet the standard was better set and test than how web development has been done.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just be happy with a "standard/reference render" that is the core basis to work from and defines how all current standards are to be applied. You could still have other browsers doing their own thing if they want. They could just be ignored where necessary.

That "standard/reference render" USED to be IE6, back in the golden days when Microsoft was ahead of the game in terms of standards (they had a CSS implementation as of version 3). IE6 was the de-facto standard and every other browser (ex. Netscape) "could just be ignored" because it wasn't important.

We know what a mess that was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That "standard/reference render" USED to be IE6, back in the golden days when Microsoft was ahead of the game in terms of standards (they had a CSS implementation as of version 3). IE6 was the de-facto standard and every other browser (ex. Netscape) "could just be ignored" because it wasn't important.

We know what a mess that was.

Except I'm not talking about one browser vendor attempting to be the "defacto". I'm talking about an actual standard where multiple vendors and the W3C all contribute. Obviously requires cooperation and the W3C to get their act together so I hold little hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"essentially". But the whole discussion here is about set standards.

IE7 was criticised for it's poor/incomplete implementation of CSS2.1 back in 2006. It wouldn't be until IE8's release in 2009 that Trident got full CSS2.1 support - yet said standard didn't become a W3C recommendation until 2011.

Why should Webkit be treated any differently? Why should Google, a company that's supposed to be the open white knight taking a stand against big bad Microsoft, be allowed to get away with not having an up-to-date implementation of an arguably finalised standard?

Do you not see the irony in IE having support for an open standard before Webkit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily I dropped opera when I realized that IE10 was faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IE7 was criticised for it's poor/incomplete implementation of CSS2.1 back in 2006. It wouldn't be until IE8's release in 2009 that Trident got full CSS2.1 support - yet said standard didn't become a W3C recommendation until 2011.

Why should Webkit be treated any differently? Why should Google, a company that's supposed to be the open white knight taking a stand against big bad Microsoft, be allowed to get away with not having an up-to-date implementation of an arguably finalised standard?

Do you not see the irony in IE having support for an open standard before Webkit?

webkit != google.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

webkit != google.

So you're saying Webkit is a closed source project now? Or maybe that "It's fine because it's open source" defence doesn't work out so well in practice?

Google chose to use Webkit, they choose to continue using Webkit. Considering what they've done with projects such as libp and SPDY, if Webkit isn't up to snuff it's as much their fault as anyone's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except I'm not talking about one browser vendor attempting to be the "defacto". I'm talking about an actual standard where multiple vendors and the W3C all contribute. Obviously requires cooperation and the W3C to get their act together so I hold little hope.

Google services are optimized for Chrome only so for a large number of web users, Chrome is the de facto standard,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nonsense for several reasons..

1. First, we have proof.. as in REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE that webkit browsers on mobile iOS/Android work MUCH better and developing for mobile web is far easier than for desktop due to almost no fragmentation. Yes, Apple introduced a couple of unique webkit prefixes on Safari for mobile but those are really not a big deal as you don't have to use them. They extend functionality and give some thing for iOS platform. You can still completely avoid using them and have the same code running on both Android and iOS.

They work better because the majority of smartphones in use only allow WebKit browsers. Meanwhile the best mobile browser is still Opera Mobile, whic unfortunately is not allowed on said biggest smartphone platform.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except I'm not talking about one browser vendor attempting to be the "defacto". I'm talking about an actual standard where multiple vendors and the W3C all contribute. Obviously requires cooperation and the W3C to get their act together so I hold little hope.

You are still talking about one rendering engine which is just an implementation of a standard. The fact that it is open source and used by 4 browsers as the core does not mean it will avoid the IE6 problems.

Go look up Media Player Classic (MPC), MPC BE, and MPC HC as a great example. MPC was the original open source project by guliverkli. He stopped working on it, so it was forked to MPC HC. Years later, there was a split where MPC HC continued down one path and MPC BE continued on another. They had fundamental disagreements about the future so they are not contributing to each other completely.

That is a very likely scenario with Webkit, and from my understanding probably already is. Safari, Chrome, now Opera are going to have diverging ideas on how to make Webkit faster, better, and some new cool feature we don't know of yet. Now you assume that those changes will make it to the main branch of Webkit for all to share. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Some of it will, yes, but not all. Why? Because there are major differences that will emerge in how to proceed. Just look at WebGL vs Direct2D. Microsoft has implemented a full hardware renderer using Direct2D that makes WebGL pointless. Google wants WebGL. How do you reconcile differences? That is the whole point of having multiple browsers, multiple rendering engines.

The standard just says that for xyz features, you must make it have these capabilities and produce this end result. That does not tell you how to do it or the best way to do it. The beauty of programming is that there are several different ways to do the same thing. Another point, Perl, Python, Ruby, IronRuby, JavaScript, PowerShell, C++, C, C#, Java, etc. All of them do the exact same thing and guess what, they compile to a standard!!!! They must all compile or be runnable on a common CPU platform which defines the standard for how machine code works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They work better because the majority of smartphones in use only allow WebKit browsers.

Well exactly.. that's the whole point.. if we had that on desktop it would 10x better than what we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.