[flagged]
Not when there are over 2 million tests (many of which are composed of multiple sub-tests), and there are more being added all the time.
Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
211–220 of 272 posts
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is they are not even compliment to their "own" spec. They are part of whatwg. But if you ever write web page. You will know it's always the safari that differs from the spec. Firefox in the other end never have such issue. Write a page on chrome, works 90% on Firefox. But will likely works 10% on safari. Supports safari literally means support another browser (by workaround all its bugs).
Those are some exaggerated beyond belief numbers you just made up. Some of us also work in web development and know better.
It's not even exaggerated, the ticket count about safari on my board is almost higher than sum of every other browser in total. I 100% just want this browser die if apple ever allow other browser on ios.
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are they really non-corpo? I remember seeing some corpos bankrolling it? And in that sense, is it better than Gecko with firefox, which is non-profit?
I don't remember that; maybe you can look it up? Ladybird is still far from usable or fast enough to even start comparing it to Gecko.
It says here: https://ladybird.org/#sponsors
Shopify, CloudFlare, and others.
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#214[flagged]
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#215[flagged]
[dead]
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Three years ago I was very skeptical of Ladybird. But two things have changed. First, they have funding for 8 full time engineers, which I definitely wasn’t expecting. Second, it’s been three years. So given that, I am more optimistic. There’s still a very long way before they can compete with Chrome, of course. And I’m not sure I ever understood the value proposition compared to forking an existing engine.
Who is backing it ? That’s a bit of money Nm can see the list, wonder what’s in it for those companies
They list sponsors on their website: https://ladybird.org/#sponsors
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#217You love to see it
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government(s) need to force Google to obey web standards that are set by an industry consortium. One that also has small player participation as a requirement. If Google is strong arming or pushing ahead their own agenda, the standards body should have plenty enough votes to veto. And for teeth, compliance should be a requirement for Google to even be allowed to have its own browser. If they break it, no more bro…
Google mostly does obey web standards that are set by an industry consortium (WHATWG, W3C, or in the case of JavaScript EMCA). Chrome has the best compliance with standards of any of the big three (see wpt.fyi) - which is not surprising, because they also have the most engineering time dedicated to their browser, and the most people working on standards. These bodies require buy in from multiple vendors, but generall…
> Chrome is unusually good about working in public to develop specifications for such features even when other browsers aren't currently interested in shipping them.
That is, if there's a promotion, or a company bet, or a need to establish/secure market dominance for one property or another, Chrome dumps a scribble on a napkin, barely engages in any conversation, and ships to production within a few weeks after dumping said scribbles.
Once it's out there, it couldn't care less what other browsers vendors will say. Dominant market share and an army of developers who never bothered to learn about standards processes will make sure that this is now a standard.
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
OTOH, are all of the browsers supposed to move in lock step? Is chrome supposed to wait for everyone else's approval before launching any kind of feature?
I wouldn't say stuff like Manifest V2 is "new features". A lot of what Chrome is pushing is just to support its commercial interests. We've kinda come full circle. Web standards were made to prevent what happened when Internet Explorer ruled the world but now a corporation has near-monopoly browser share and is driving the web standards themselves
Manifest v2 was having the same privacy guarantees as Safari and it broke a lot of people’s brains. Even if we assume it’s a secret way to neuter ad blockers even though they are fine, it does not imply we have IE or anything close. I’m kinda happy people take positions like these because they keep companies honesty but it’s completely irrational.
Re: Ladybird passes the Apple 90% threshold on web-platform-tests
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll guess that the remaining 10% will take more than another 90%, and also that it will keep growing as time goes on. Web standards are becoming more complex every day.
This is one huge blindspot in the web spec process in my opinion. Any new spec is considered on the context of existing browsers and very little consideration seems to be given to the scope of the web standards as a whole.
There's also no actual way of saying "no" to a web standard. The whole process is designed around moving a spec forward through stages.
To quote Rich Harris, the author of Svelte: https://x.com/Rich_Harris/status/1841605646128460111
--- start quote ---
saying 'no' is the key to good software design, but in standards you can only 'champion' proposals — you can't champion the _lack_ of a proposal. the best you can hope for is inertia.
in my experience the only feedback that is welcome is around the details of an idea, never around whether the idea has merit in the first place, and you should expect to be reminded that implementers are the only people whose opinions actually matter.
--- end quote ---
and someone else in the same conversation:
--- start quote ---
You can't practically anti-champion standards that are small improvements to features that ought to have been abandoned, like Shadow DOM. Shadow DOM sucks, but it sucked a little less when they added CSS Module Scripts, Selection.getComposedRanges(), ElementInternals.shadowRoot…
https://x.com/dfabu/status/1841936377350652391
---