Microsoft begs Web devs not to make WebKit the new IE6

[siah1214]

Still ignoring the earlier replies I see.

That's all you're going to get from the Google shill :)

I love how no one is talking about Firefox here.. no one has a problem with Firefox not being webkit based.

[The Evil Overlord]

sooo, what happened to netscape navigator...?

[SharpGreen]

sooo, what happened to netscape navigator...?

It died because they were stupid enough to try to charge you for it.

[ArialBlue]

Sites objectively testing open source browsers are a "political push polls" (whatever that means) while in your eyes tests paid by a corporation trying to show their browser as good for their own benefits is A OK..

Logic escapes you.

"It is open source therefore I am right" is not an argument. I can't fathom why you use it as an argument.

You also you fail to realize that you are defending a corporation known as Google.

Very nice of you to tell me that paid tests are bad by a corporation while dry humping everything Google makes and repeating everything Google tells you.

Very nice of you to defend a browsers that is "paid by a corporation" to be spammed in every installer and every advertisement on the web while bashing another one which is nowhere as obnoxious.

I am not sure if you are a troll or paid by Google. Either way, you are ****ing me off.

[migo]

Netscape didn't die because they charged for it. They stopped charging once IE went free, but they still couldn't keep up because Netscape 4 was crap compared to IE4. Ever since IE4, there was nothing else that was remotely as good. That's how IE6 ended up on top, because everything else was crap. IE6 stagnated because there wasn't any competition, it took FireFox years to kind of catch up and become a viable option because it used tons of memory back when a system with 256MB of RAM was a lot, and a good IE shell could have multiple tabs open with 10-15MB of RAM usage.

Google is pushing Webkit, and Chrome in particular because they want to dominate the web - just like Microsoft wanted to. Everything they're doing with Chrome is exactly the same, and once they hit the same kind of marketshare they'll sit on their laurels, because there's no more reason for them to innovate.

[Boz]

Netscape didn't die because they charged for it. They stopped charging once IE went free, but they still couldn't keep up because Netscape 4 was crap compared to IE4. Ever since IE4, there was nothing else that was remotely as good. That's how IE6 ended up on top, because everything else was crap. IE6 stagnated because there wasn't any competition, it took FireFox years to kind of catch up and become a viable option because it used tons of memory back when a system with 256MB of RAM was a lot, and a good IE shell could have multiple tabs open with 10-15MB of RAM usage.

Google is pushing Webkit, and Chrome in particular because they want to dominate the web - just like Microsoft wanted to. Everything they're doing with Chrome is exactly the same, and once they hit the same kind of marketshare they'll sit on their laurels, because there's no more reason for them to innovate.

First of all.. this right here shows that you are uninformed or too young to remember/know.

Other browsers died or didn't get popularity in the time of IE5 and IE6 because Microsoft held a monopoly with Windows and made IE defacto standard due to forcing it on everyone. Netscape and other browsers at that time didn't stand a chance against Microsoft because Microsoft had IE on both Windows and they had IE even on a Mac. Not to mention that Microsoft did something even worse then (what they are actually doing now) is that they took Javascript and made their own standard JScript that was slightly different from ECMAScript based Javascript so they could make others build websites and stuff and it wouldn't work on other browsers. In essence, the most evil and destructive thing for innovation and progress they could do. I remember this very vividly because I built websites back then and I remember the nightmare we had with it..

Only when Microsoft was legally pushed by DOJ and others to stop with monopoly other browsers started getting a fair share of spotlight.

It had very little to do with the "quality" of other browsers.

Second, Google is pushing Webkit because it's an open source HTML rendering engine. Google doesn't own webkit and they dominate the web because their browser is hands down the best browser, and it's not the only webkit browser. They are not forcing the browser on anyone. They are NOTHING like MIcrosoft. Google invests in open source technologies because they want web to be open, unchained from proprietary garbage because they know that if there's a fair competition they will win out due to quality products and by killling proprietary dependencies they can offer advertising more freely. Yes, they want to sell advertising. Nothing wrong with that and if they push everything proprietary the whole web and market is better off because products and services will compete on quality and not proprietary chains and monopoly and unlike with Microsoft ANYONE can make better product than Google and compete on the same webkit base or anything that's open source because they are not blackmailed by anyone with licensing fees or platform holder. This is why they bought and invested and opened the WebM and VP8 video codec. Because they wanted to get rid of the proprietary h.264 format and offer something that is truly free and open source and where NOONE will have to pay licensing to anyone to use video and audio on the web.

The beauty of open source is that it's not dictated by Google. It's dictated by everyone who contributes to it. So if Google stops innovating with Chrome, Webkit will continue evolving and innovating because it's not owned by Google and someone else will rise up as the next best webkit browser because they continue innovating . That's what open source allows them. How can you not get that? Some of you can't really understand, or are unwilling to understand that there's a HUGE difference between Microsoft and proprietary software and something that is completely open and not owned by anyone. Webkit has nothing to do with Google. They just contribute to it just like everyone else.

Microsoft OWNS IE. It's completely proprietary This means that if Microsoft drops the ball again, you have ZERO choices. You are stuck with garbage like we were with IE6. Not to mention that it's not cross platform, it's tied completely to Windows and furthermore Microsoft wants to have developers build apps and everything for IE10 for Metro and desktop that will tie into WinRT with more proprietary hooks and IE exclusive crap that won't work anywhere else BUT on IE for Metro/Windows.

It's absolutely not the same as you claim. Stop trying to justify Microsoft because what you are claiming makes zero sense.

[Mr. Gibs]

Other browsers died or didn't get popularity in the time of IE5 and IE6 because Microsoft held a monopoly with Windows and made IE defacto standard due to forcing it on everyone. Netscape and other browsers at that time didn't stand a chance against Microsoft because Microsoft had IE on both Windows and they had IE even on a Mac. Not to mention that Microsoft did something even worse then (what they are actually doing now) is that they took Javascript and made their own standard JScript that was slightly different from ECMAScript based Javascript so they could make others build websites and stuff and it wouldn't work on other browsers. In essence, the most evil and destructive thing for innovation and progress they could do.

1. Firefox came out in 2004. The Microsoft ruling was in 1998, from 1998 to 2004 IE was STILL the only browser people used and there was no other competition and because of that IE became the pile of **** that it did with 6. What migo said was right.

2. You have a problem with Microsoft using their own made up code because it ruins the web and I agree with that. But you have no problem with Google doing the same thing? I'm going to quote you:

"so they could make others build websites and stuff and it wouldn't work on other browsers. In essence, the most evil and destructive thing for innovation and progress they could do."

So yet again you prove that you're a fanboy.

This is why they bought and invested and opened the WebM and VP8 video codec. Because they wanted to get rid of the proprietary h.264 format and offer something that is truly free and open source.

Why do you support flash so much then? WebGL is truly free and open source too, you should you be praising it from the rooftops. But yet you constantly claim flash is better and HTML5 and WebGL should just go die.

It's absolutely not the same as you claim. Stop trying to justify Microsoft because what you are claiming makes zero sense.

Nobody is justifying Microsoft here, your fanboyism is just too strong for you to see that.

People here are supporting web STANDARDS over vendor prefixes, and in this case MS is supporting STANDARDS too. Vendor only code is what ruined the web and made IE6 as infamous as it is and honestly all browser makers should stop using them. If the prefixes are gone it benefits EVERYONE.

Jesus Boz give it up.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

First of all.. this right here shows that you are uninformed or too young to remember/know.

Other browsers died or didn't get popularity in the time of IE5 and IE6 because Microsoft held a monopoly with Windows and made IE defacto standard due to forcing it on everyone. Netscape and other browsers at that time didn't stand a chance against Microsoft because Microsoft had IE on both Windows and they had IE even on a Mac. Not to mention that Microsoft did something even worse then (what they are actually doing now) is that they took Javascript and made their own standard JScript that was slightly different from ECMAScript based Javascript so they could make others build websites and stuff and it wouldn't work on other browsers. In essence, the most evil and destructive thing for innovation and progress they could do.

Only when Microsoft was legally pushed by DOJ and others to stop with monopoly other browsers started getting a fair share of spotlight.

It had very little to do with the "quality" of other browsers.

Second, Google is pushing Webkit because it's an open source HTML rendering engine. Google doesn't own webkit and they dominate the web because their browser is hands down the best browser. They are not forcing the browser on anyone. They are NOTHING like MIcrosoft. Google invests in open source technologies because they want web to be open, unchained from proprietary garbage because they know that if there's a fair competition they will win out due to quality products and by killling proprietary dependencies they can offer advertising more freely. Yes, they want to sell advertising. Nothing wrong with that and if they push everything proprietary the whole web and market is better off because products and services will compete on quality and not proprietary chains and monopoly and unlike with Microsoft ANYONE can make better product than Google and compete on the same webkit base. This is why they bought and invested and opened the WebM and VP8 video codec. Because they wanted to get rid of the proprietary h.264 format and offer something that is truly free and open source and where NOONE will have to pay licensing to anyone to use video and audio on the web.

The beauty of open source is that it's not dictated by Google. It's dictated by everyone who contributes to it. So if Google stops innovating with Chrome, Webkit will continue evolving and innovating because it's not owned by Google. How can you not get that? Some of you can't really understand, or are unwilling to understand that there's a HUGE difference between Microsoft and proprietary software and something that is completely open and not owned by anyone. Webkit has nothing to do with Google. They just contribute to it just like everyone else.

Microsoft OWNS IE. It's completely proprietary This means that if Microsoft drops the ball again, you have ZERO choices. You are stuck with garbage like we were with IE6. Not to mention that it's not cross platform, it's tied completely to Windows and furthermore Microsoft wants to have developers build apps and everything for IE10 for Metro and desktop that will tie into WinRT with more proprietary hooks and IE exclusive crap.

It's absolutely not the same as you claim. Stop trying to justify Microsoft because what you are claiming makes zero sense.

shows you don't know anything either, Netscape died because Aol bought them out and tried to turn it into a Firefox clone and in turn made it unusably slow (aka 30-60+ seconds to load and the UI was not very responsive at all for example)

[Yogurtmaster]

IE needs to die completely.. end of..

and, no, IE8, IE9 and IE10 will be the new IE6. Apple and Google along with Mozilla are following W3C and WHATWG in implementing new features and support for CSS3 and HTML and thus when we build web stuff today it just works across all of these browsers with most of the fancy effects and we are still jumping hoops and having to put up with Microsoft's IE crap.

So ironic but expected that Microsoft can't understand why they are terrible in this regard as well. IE 10 is better than all other IEs but it's STILL IE and it's still Microsoft, so we will continue supporting webkit because it evolves and browsers update themselves to be always current on user's machines while Microsoft still peddles their old proprietary crap..

Hey Microsoft, here's an idea for you.. MAKE IE based on webkit and help build a better webkit base since it's open and help developers develop for one HTML/web engine? Oh you don't want to, or you have to deal with your users who you screwed with terrible IEs? Well the web and internet in general won't wait for you. Nobody cares what you think anymore. You have shown us what web looks like with you and it's not a pretty picture and it's so ironic that we are being warned by MS about competing rendering engine not being "good" for us.

Just die already and stop whining since you are a decade late to the next generation.

Boz, can you provide me proof on what proprietary HTML/Javascript that Microsoft uses in IE 9 and 10? Because both FireFox and IE do not use Webkit, but both are built on the standards as written by the W3C.

[Legendary Silke]

Every time I see a site broken in Internet Explorer 9 and newer, chances are somebody forgot any of the following:

A DOCTYPE without any comment before it

Unprefixed/-ms- CSS properties

If someone were to pull up HTML5Test results, keep in mind that it does not test performance or actual compliance. It only detects whether the features exist at all... And is known for excluding certain usable implementations.

I've seen my fair share of sites that are easily fixed because of some sort of typo, negligence, or configuration error. Keep in mind that the issues MS outlines also applies when ensuring compatibility with Firefox, Opera, and stuff that isn't WebKit, given that these browser has also adopted prefix-less CSS properties.

[Yogurtmaster]

First of all.. this right here shows that you are uninformed or too young to remember/know.

Other browsers died or didn't get popularity in the time of IE5 and IE6 because Microsoft held a monopoly with Windows and made IE defacto standard due to forcing it on everyone. Netscape and other browsers at that time didn't stand a chance against Microsoft because Microsoft had IE on both Windows and they had IE even on a Mac. Not to mention that Microsoft did something even worse then (what they are actually doing now) is that they took Javascript and made their own standard JScript that was slightly different from ECMAScript based Javascript so they could make others build websites and stuff and it wouldn't work on other browsers. In essence, the most evil and destructive thing for innovation and progress they could do. I remember this very vividly because I built websites back then and I remember the nightmare we had with it..

Only when Microsoft was legally pushed by DOJ and others to stop with monopoly other browsers started getting a fair share of spotlight.

It had very little to do with the "quality" of other browsers.

Second, Google is pushing Webkit because it's an open source HTML rendering engine. Google doesn't own webkit and they dominate the web because their browser is hands down the best browser, and it's not the only webkit browser. They are not forcing the browser on anyone. They are NOTHING like MIcrosoft. Google invests in open source technologies because they want web to be open, unchained from proprietary garbage because they know that if there's a fair competition they will win out due to quality products and by killling proprietary dependencies they can offer advertising more freely. Yes, they want to sell advertising. Nothing wrong with that and if they push everything proprietary the whole web and market is better off because products and services will compete on quality and not proprietary chains and monopoly and unlike with Microsoft ANYONE can make better product than Google and compete on the same webkit base or anything that's open source because they are not blackmailed by anyone with licensing fees or platform holder. This is why they bought and invested and opened the WebM and VP8 video codec. Because they wanted to get rid of the proprietary h.264 format and offer something that is truly free and open source and where NOONE will have to pay licensing to anyone to use video and audio on the web.

The beauty of open source is that it's not dictated by Google. It's dictated by everyone who contributes to it. So if Google stops innovating with Chrome, Webkit will continue evolving and innovating because it's not owned by Google and someone else will rise up as the next best webkit browser because they continue innovating . That's what open source allows them. How can you not get that? Some of you can't really understand, or are unwilling to understand that there's a HUGE difference between Microsoft and proprietary software and something that is completely open and not owned by anyone. Webkit has nothing to do with Google. They just contribute to it just like everyone else.

Microsoft OWNS IE. It's completely proprietary This means that if Microsoft drops the ball again, you have ZERO choices. You are stuck with garbage like we were with IE6. Not to mention that it's not cross platform, it's tied completely to Windows and furthermore Microsoft wants to have developers build apps and everything for IE10 for Metro and desktop that will tie into WinRT with more proprietary hooks and IE exclusive crap that won't work anywhere else BUT on IE for Metro/Windows.

It's absolutely not the same as you claim. Stop trying to justify Microsoft because what you are claiming makes zero sense.

Not only do you start by rewriting history, you try to rewrite the present with non-sense. I use chrome (check the logs on the website). Everything you said was just outright wrong.

I mean I don't even know where to start because it's all just propaganda and pure lies. I bought my first PC in 1991 (it's not my first computer, my first computer was the Atari 800XL back in the early 80's).

I used the Internet before Trumpet Winsock was used with Mosaic. I used Netscape for years when you could even get a beta before 1.0 and it fit on a floppy disk. So, I remember what happened and you are wrong.

Netscape was free for education and if I remember personal and non-commercial use only. If you were a corporation you had to buy it. Netscape screwed themselves because when they start adding in Java it kept crashing all of the time when you visited a web page with Java and it became really bloated where it crashed a lot and was huge. Microsoft's browsers sucked for a long time and were not even usable until 5 came out and then 6 which did add in proprietary crap, you are right. IE did dominate but it did so because Netscape became unusable. It went like this for me... Unix Lynx (Text based that I used on Windows from Dialing in to a Unix system at a University from a Terminal program on Windows), Mosaic, Netscape, IE 5, IE 6, FireFox, and then Chrome for today. The first versions of IE were crap and everyone was using Netscape at the time, but because Netscape started screwing up and became unstable a bunch of us switched to IE because by then IE was just a better browser at the time. Those two were the only viable versions out and one was getting terrible and the other one was getting better, then Firefox came out and changed the world once again. Competition is a good thing and I agree with that, but you don't understand the history of what us nerds went through on Windows OSes before everyone else was on the Internet. I am speaking to a Windows only history here, Unix and Linux will have a different story.,

IE 9 and 10 is a complete rewrite of the HTML/Javascript engine (google channel9 an msdn channel to educate yourself). It is a rewrite based on the latest standards of the W3C standards.

Webkit is an engine that is open source (I believe this to be the case) that is also based on the W3C standard. IE uses 3D acceleration of the HTML5 standard to make things faster, this is not in the W3C standards, but it doesn't affect rendering other than speed.

Microsoft does not support WebGL which is not a part of the W3C HTML5 or CSS standard.

[Boz]

Everything you said was just outright wrong.

I fail to see in your response what I'm exactly wrong about, when you actually agree with quite a few things I wrote. I've been using WIndows from version 1.0 and before that I built programs on Commodore 64. Though this is highly irrelevant. Everything I wrote is absolutely true.

Microsoft worked actively to block everyone else on Windows using any other browser by implementing proprietary things into IE so companies and people would write only for their platform and browser.

Everything I wrote is absolutely correct.

Microsoft should NEVER EVER be trusted again with anything. As long as they own and write everything on proprietary IE, they are a danger to the web. Webkit is open source, Gecko is open source and thus are positive for the web because everyone can join in and push them forward. IE is ONLY Microsoft and no one else can do updates and changes to keep it up to standards in the future and that's the end of that. That's why they need to either:

A) Open source IE

or

B) Join Webkit open source initiative along with many others and contribute

or

C) Shut up and let it die

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

...

What is going to happen and is happening is you have Google doing their own thing with Chrome, Apple is adding specific things to safari that only run on their platforms and OSs, Mozilla is doing their own thing while Microsoft, well, Microsoft has their own idea.

I am not against HTML5 at all, I'm glad it's improved, however, I am very pessimistic where it's going. This is (maybe not to the same extent) similar to what we had in 1990s with browsers and everyone spinning their own things. This was always a problem with web in general and I dont' think it will ever become a nirvana some people believe.

...

So which is it, are standards good or bad?

[Yogurtmaster]

I fail to see in your response what I'm exactly wrong about, when you actually agree with quite a few things I wrote. I've been using WIndows from version 1.0 and before that I built programs on Commodore 64. Though this is highly irrelevant. Everything I wrote is absolutely true.

Microsoft worked actively to block everyone else on Windows using any other browser by implementing proprietary things into IE so companies and people would write only for their platform and browser.

Everything I wrote is absolutely correct.

Microsoft should NEVER EVER be trusted again with anything. As long as they own and write everything on proprietary IE, they are a danger to the web. Webkit is open source, Gecko is open source and thus are positive for the web because everyone can join in and push them forward. IE is ONLY Microsoft and no one else can do updates and changes to keep it up to standards in the future and that's the end of that. That's why they need to either:

A) Open source IE

or

B) Join Webkit open source initiative along with many others and contribute

or

C) Shut up and let it die

Microsoft only was a threat to the web because there were not any serious competitors. Once Firefox came on to the scene as a serious competitor (Netscape had been falling apart for many years and if nobody creates a serious product, you can't have serious competition so the web would stagnate for a long time). then things changed. This is the real story.

IE is no longer a threat because Microsoft is in no way a threat you have Safari, Firefox, Chrome, and Opera, so there are serious competitors out now that did not exist when IE5 and 6 came out. This day and age you also have many platforms, Android, ios, Ubuntu, Mac, and Windows. So again, no threat like you had back then. So, you are wrong.

I vote for D, keep it going and keep improving it. FireFox also does not use Webkit either, I don't think Opera does either (checked the wiki list and nope), so please Shut up already. Your ignorant babbling is complete non-sense.

You do know what W3C is for right? It's a standard so we all don't have to use the same engine (webkit).

[HawkMan]

First of all.. this right here shows that you are uninformed or too young to remember/know.

Other browsers died or didn't get popularity in the time of IE5 and IE6 because Microsoft held a monopoly with Windows and made IE defacto standard due to forcing it on everyone. Netscape and other browsers at that time didn't stand a chance against Microsoft because Microsoft had IE on both Windows and they had IE even on a Mac. Not to mention that Microsoft did something even worse then (what they are actually doing now) is that they took Javascript and made their own standard JScript that was slightly different from ECMAScript based Javascript so they could make others build websites and stuff and it wouldn't work on other browsers. In essence, the most evil and destructive thing for innovation and progress they could do. I remember this very vividly because I built websites back then and I remember the nightmare we had with it..

Only when Microsoft was legally pushed by DOJ and others to stop with monopoly other browsers started getting a fair share of spotlight.

It had very little to do with the "quality" of other browsers.

Second, Google is pushing Webkit because it's an open source HTML rendering engine. Google doesn't own webkit and they dominate the web because their browser is hands down the best browser, and it's not the only webkit browser. They are not forcing the browser on anyone. They are NOTHING like MIcrosoft. Google invests in open source technologies because they want web to be open, unchained from proprietary garbage because they know that if there's a fair competition they will win out due to quality products and by killling proprietary dependencies they can offer advertising more freely. Yes, they want to sell advertising. Nothing wrong with that and if they push everything proprietary the whole web and market is better off because products and services will compete on quality and not proprietary chains and monopoly and unlike with Microsoft ANYONE can make better product than Google and compete on the same webkit base or anything that's open source because they are not blackmailed by anyone with licensing fees or platform holder. This is why they bought and invested and opened the WebM and VP8 video codec. Because they wanted to get rid of the proprietary h.264 format and offer something that is truly free and open source and where NOONE will have to pay licensing to anyone to use video and audio on the web.

The beauty of open source is that it's not dictated by Google. It's dictated by everyone who contributes to it. So if Google stops innovating with Chrome, Webkit will continue evolving and innovating because it's not owned by Google and someone else will rise up as the next best webkit browser because they continue innovating . That's what open source allows them. How can you not get that? Some of you can't really understand, or are unwilling to understand that there's a HUGE difference between Microsoft and proprietary software and something that is completely open and not owned by anyone. Webkit has nothing to do with Google. They just contribute to it just like everyone else.

Microsoft OWNS IE. It's completely proprietary This means that if Microsoft drops the ball again, you have ZERO choices. You are stuck with garbage like we were with IE6. Not to mention that it's not cross platform, it's tied completely to Windows and furthermore Microsoft wants to have developers build apps and everything for IE10 for Metro and desktop that will tie into WinRT with more proprietary hooks and IE exclusive crap that won't work anywhere else BUT on IE for Metro/Windows.

It's absolutely not the same as you claim. Stop trying to justify Microsoft because what you are claiming makes zero sense.

Wrong. IE got popular long before it was included by default, simply because it was better than Netscape, which was horrible. After it became default that's not why Netscape died, it died because it was still horrible, and all the computer and internet users back then where advanced users more than capable of downloading browsers.

And other browsers didn't become popular because of lawsuits against MS. Firstly the browser select screen came long after that, and secondly other browser became popular because Firefox was actually a good browser and a good alternative.

Also, you're still ignoring the earlier replies.

[engii]

LOL, telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about and then comparing an open source HTML rendering engine that everyone can contribute to and improve with IE6 is hilarious. I think it's pretty clear who doesn't know what they are talking about here.

The problem with IE is that it's proprietary. That's why it stagnated. Company who owned it, Microsoft, got lazy and didn't do anything to improve it while not allowing everyone else to contribute nor even get access to it which is a HUGE difference.

And btw,

43.2% of browser marketshare belongs to Webkit, while 99% on mobile makes it a standard.

<Snipped>

the whole idea of an INDEPENDENT standards committee like W3C is so that no one company can dominate and push the web where it likes....ALl the browser devs contribute here and make recommendation at this level not at the software or framework level... Just because Apple and Google did not have teh capability to build a browser from the ground up and decided to use an open source engine doesn't mean this should suddenly be the default standard or promoted to standard by shear volume of numbers...When MS dominated browser market in the order of 80% plus they still had no sway over w3C and standards and could claim standardization abased on the argument you've used...so you can sell that **** somewhere else

On the html5test.com test and which browser does what...WebGL is not an agreed standard orr some other areas that chrome etc gets points for but rightfully shouldn't be included in the test unless it is ratified by W3C....so 1e10 being at 320 vs FF, Home etc being at 400 etc is all bull****...

lastly in the corporate and business space, IE is the only browser that rally counts for its integration with active directly, active x support for intranet apps etc and general group policy management and control....the other browsers a generations behind in these areas....Like it or not, just because you use a browser in your own time doesn't mean that suddenly that's how browsing should be in every facet of life from personal to business...there are reasons that certain pseudo standards are not adopted by MS and also reasons why big business continues to support IE...

MS is the only company to date that has the same exact browser operating in all spaces and has done excellent work in the browser space with teh release of ie 10....you got to give credit where its due and you need to think outside your tiny life dude....

Edited November 20, 2012 by Anaron

[Soldiers33]

I have so far never used a browser as good as ie9 and above. Tried chrome, firefox, opera and everything but just cannot let go of ie9. I love the simple design and its fast and also very simple to use.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

...

On the html5test.com test and which browser does what...WebGL is not an agreed standard orr some other areas that chrome etc gets points for but rightfully shouldn't be included in the test unless it is ratified by W3C....so 1e10 being at 320 vs FF, Home etc being at 400 etc is all bull****...

...

The W3C isn't the one managing WebGL, Khronos is. Just because they don't have control over it doesn't mean it's not a "web standard" (Both HTML and JavaScript are managed by bodies other than the W3C, etc.)

And the initial WebGL standard has been finalised, so now they're working on updates for it.

[Boz]

So which is it, are standards good or bad?

Standards are good, but I still stand behind what I wrote.. the problem is that we have too many browsers with everyone trying to go their way. Consolidating everything under open source Webkit (as it is the most popular and open) and everyone contributing to one code based would solve that problem. Even if Google for example stagnates with Chrome, everyone else would continue to improve webkit and other webkit browsers would take over instead of Chrome. Not to mention that it is cross-platform and having Microsoft and Mozilla join it and improve it would be beneficial to everyone. We would finally have a single unified web platform that everyone would contribute to evolve and compatibility problem would go away. Unfortunately, Microsoft wants to control the browser and web and simply can't switch to something that's open source because they lose control which shows clearly their underlying politics.

HTML5 in general has issues not because of Webkit but because there are too many cooks in the kitchen and Microsoft does their thing, others do their thing and in the end developers have to write spaghetti code to accomodate every browser. If everything was webkit this wouldn't be a problem. If anything web standards such as W3C ones would bee integrated at a much much faster pace than every decade.

[Boz]

This thread can be summarized with "Morons continue to exist and continue thinking they're correct no matter what you tell them."

Just in the case half the forum arguing against 1 incorrect person wasn't evidence enough.

The whole point of the argument is that Microsoft is far greater danger for the web and always will be as long as it peddles it's own proprietary technology and hypocritical for "warning" anyone how Webkit is the new IE6. A platform that is developed by multiple parties and open source. Complete and utter nonsense and anyone who defends them is doing it purely to defend Microsoft.

Just because IE10 now has ok HTML5 support, Microsoft is now "pioneer" and "champion" of standards and everyone else is now destroying the web. Please. Reality is that they are behind in everything and better technologies have advanced and gotten adopted by everyone Up until IE10 Microsoft created a MESS. Even IE9 is terrible. They don't have ANY right to say a single word about anything.

[threetonesun]

HTML5 in general has issues not because of Webkit but because there are too many cooks in the kitchen and Microsoft does their thing, others do their thing and in the end developers have to write spaghetti code to accomodate every browser. If everything was webkit this wouldn't be a problem. If anything web standards such as W3C ones would bee integrated at a much much faster pace than every decade.

Remember how cool it was when IE6 was the only browser around, and you didn't have to write browser prefixes, and you could create Active X controls and assume everyone could use them?

That sure was great, wasn't it? It didn't stagnate the entire Internet or leave 10 years of compatibility issues or anything.

[coth]

That's for updating from IE9 to IE10. IE9 doesn't have the built-in ability to automatically update. IE10 does.

We're talking about starting with IE10.

But i'm not talking about the fact that update event fires without user actions. I'm talking about update process itself.

[BajiRav]

With webkit that can't happen because it is now owned, nor developed exclusively by a single company. How can you people not get that.

Which Webkit are you talking about? The Apple Webkit or the Google webkit?

Webkit is following W3C standards.. but they are able to add new features that push the boundaries and bring more stuff because W3C is too slow. Unlike Microsoft, Webkit stuff is actually open to everyone. It's not "Chrome" that does anything.. it's integrated in webkit and every browser using webkit as an engine uses it. That's why a site and everything you make in Chrome will look the same in Safari and that right there is the most important thing for developers. The fact that you can use all of these across the board.

And let's not pretend that IE doesn't have non-standard extensions. They have plenty which makes this whole argument completely ridiculous.

As far as WebGL.. WebGL works. I do prefer Flash but not because it's Flash or some bias but because it's still the most universal way to get rich interactive content out the door that works identical across all browser. With this, I am not tied to Flash at all, I would love to see WebGL and new features that Adobe is championing with Google, Apple and W3C to get some amazing things in webkit like proper wrapping around objects (like in prepress/InDesign), CSS3 gradients, CSS3 effects and blend modes, and many other things.

And btw, WebGL security issues are an excuse.. The cross-domain texture problem has been solved with latest versions of Safari, Firefox, Chrome by having it's own sandbox. The reason why Microsoft doesn't want to support it is because it's an open source alternative to their own proprietary garbage. That's why.

So Webkit pushes boundaries while Microsoft does propitiatory stuff? got it.

Oh and are you are now suddenly a champion of HTML5? Whatever happened to Flash's superiority over every technology on the planet?

Microsoft worked actively to block everyone else on Windows using any other browser by implementing proprietary things into IE so companies and people would write only for their platform and browser.

what proprietary things are you talking about? things such as XHR which was pushing the boundaries or ActiveX which are just plugins? How is that any different than Google's SPDY stuff which is not a standard (yet) but makes Chrome work faster only on Google's sites?

The whole point of the argument is that Microsoft is far greater danger for the web and always will be as long as it peddles it's own proprietary technology and hypocritical for "warning" anyone how Webkit is the new IE6. A platform that is developed by multiple parties and open source. Complete and utter nonsense and anyone who defends them is doing it purely to defend Microsoft.

Just because IE10 now has ok HTML5 support, Microsoft is now "pioneer" and "champion" of standards and everyone else is now destroying the web. Please. Reality is that they are behind in everything and better technologies have advanced and gotten adopted by everyone Up until IE10 Microsoft created a MESS. Even IE9 is terrible. They don't have ANY right to say a single word about anything.

why is IE9 terrible? at least it doesn't push me to "install apps" or "sync my stuff" or "enable desktop notifications" when I use it.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Cleaned

[Boz]

Which Webkit are you talking about? The Apple Webkit or the Google webkit?

Your questions make no sense since there is only one webkit and both companies like many others contribute to the source of Webkit and adding new features to it so all webkit based browsers benefit from innovation.

http://www.webkit.org/