Jump to content



Photo
opera webkit

  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#46 PreKe

PreKe

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: 12-December 09

Posted 13 February 2013 - 22:23

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


You can't make a claim like this based on a flawed test like that.

For one, it allows Maxthon to cheat because all the browser needs to do is report a feature as being present. It doesn't test that the feature actually works. Also, the scores are assigned according to what the owner of the site likes (and he is probably a Chrome user).


#47 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,714 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900

Posted 13 February 2013 - 22:25

No prefixes alone don't make fragmentation.. they don't work on IE and Mozilla.. which is their problem..

A chrome prefix doesn't work on Safari and Opera. A Safari prefix doesn't work on Chrome and Opera. An Opera prefix won't work on either.

You said it yourself Apple added some safari only prefixes into iOS. What's stopping other browser makers from doing the same thing? They have to differentiate their browsers somehow and if they all use the same engine, that makes it a lot harder.

but nowhere near the way it is now where everyone does whatever the hell they want.

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

Your logic is pathetic Boz.

#48 PreKe

PreKe

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: 12-December 09

Posted 13 February 2013 - 22:25

No prefixes alone don't make fragmentation.. they don't work on IE and Mozilla.. which is their problem..


No, that's Webkit's problem for not using them properly, and not dropping them when the spec is finalized.

#49 ViperAFK

ViperAFK

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,834 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 06
  • Location: Vermont

Posted 13 February 2013 - 22:26

It would be nice if the w3c didn't move so slowly, but relying heavily on prefixes and expecting every browser to use webkit is a very poor way to "fix" this. The logic makes no sense.

#50 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,714 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900

Posted 13 February 2013 - 22:28

It would be nice if the w3c didn't move so slowly, but relying heavily on prefixes and expecting every browser to use webkit is a very poor way to "fix" this. The logic makes no sense.

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:

#51 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,411 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 13 February 2013 - 22:34

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.

#52 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,714 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900

Posted 13 February 2013 - 22:37

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?

#53 +Lovell

Lovell

    ,l,(-.-),l,

  • 1,652 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 03
  • Location: Great Britain

Posted 13 February 2013 - 22:44

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.

#54 Studio384

Studio384

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,745 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 12
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Update 1 Pro
  • Phone: Windows Phone 8.1 Update 1

Posted 13 February 2013 - 22:45

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

Posted Image

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 naïve 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!

#55 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,411 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 13 February 2013 - 22:48

Webkit doesn't support the standard at all.


Yeah.. your whole argument fell apart with this

#56 Studio384

Studio384

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,745 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 12
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Update 1 Pro
  • Phone: Windows Phone 8.1 Update 1

Posted 13 February 2013 - 22:53

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.

#57 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • 2,984 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 13 February 2013 - 22:57

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.

#58 Sandor

Sandor

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,922 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 03
  • Location: Canada
  • OS: Win 8.1
  • Phone: WP8

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:19

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...

#59 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • 2,984 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:13

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.

#60 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • 14,319 posts
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:28

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