Jump to content



Photo
opera webkit

  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#61 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:30

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


I guess no more than Chrome is a Safari skin.


#62 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • 15,871 posts
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:34

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!

#63 Yogurtmaster

Yogurtmaster

    Neowinian

  • 1,225 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 12

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:46

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.

#64 Sandor

Sandor

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,995 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 03
  • OS: Win 8.1

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:01

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.

#65 libertas83

libertas83

    Neowinian

  • 786 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 05

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:08

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.

#66 billyea

billyea

    Your Two Cents

  • 2,054 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 06
  • Location: Noitacol

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:09

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.

#67 Sandor

Sandor

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,995 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 03
  • OS: Win 8.1

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:16

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.

#68 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

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

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:16

"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?

#69 +_Alexander

_Alexander

    Neowinian

  • 1,437 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 13
  • Location: USA
  • OS: W8.1 u1
  • Phone: Nokia 521

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:30

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

#70 Sandor

Sandor

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,995 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 03
  • OS: Win 8.1

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:32

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.

#71 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

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

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:42

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.

#72 BajiRav

BajiRav

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,850 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Location: Xbox, where am I?
  • OS: Windows 8.1, Windows 8
  • Phone: Lumia 920

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:53

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,

#73 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 22,227 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 14 February 2013 - 07:31

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.

#74 libertas83

libertas83

    Neowinian

  • 786 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 05

Posted 14 February 2013 - 07:59

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.

#75 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

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

Posted 14 February 2013 - 09:39

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.