Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Opera confirms support for WebKit vendor prefixes

netmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Opera confirms support for WebKit vendor prefixes

#41

Post by talmand »

wmf wrote: post #20
talmand wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all the browsers use the same prefix then why use one at all?

Because the behavior of the beta feature may be different from the behavior of the final version.

I would prefer an experimental feature not be implemented until at least the syntax has been decided on. Prefixes were implemented so that browsers could have experimental features in place and look where we are now. Adding in a prefix, even a single one, doesn't change the fact that if present then people will use it. If the syntax changes during the -beta prefix phase then lots of stuff will be broken anyway. Can the browser companies at least get their crap together to decide on a basic syntax and then expand on it if needed? Lately they seem to be able to do that with some of the newer properties but we still have prefixes.

Re: Opera confirms support for WebKit vendor prefixes

#42

Post by alexchamberlain »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #37
alexchamberlain wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of Google's engineers have Webkit priveleges. Webkit is a single rendering engine - this should not be confused. It is used by several browsers, who of course, use slightly different compilation configurations, but I doubt that the web designer ever needs to concern themselves with that!

No Alex, not all WebKit browsers have feature parity with each other.

Example please.

Re: Opera confirms support for WebKit vendor prefixes

#43

Post by MatthewPhillips »

alexchamberlain wrote: post #42
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No Alex, not all WebKit browsers have feature parity with each other.

Example please.

Touch events - Android (any version) vs. iPhone (any version).

IndexedDB - Chrome Mobile has it (outdated version), Android and iPhone do not.

Chrome will have Dart support at a later date, no other WebKit vendor is going to implement it.

There are literally dozens, just go to caniuse.com and play around for a bit.

Re: Opera confirms support for WebKit vendor prefixes

#44

Post by alexchamberlain »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #43
alexchamberlain wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Example please.

Touch events - Android (any version) vs. iPhone (any version). IndexedDB - Chrome Mobile has it (outdated version), Android and iPhone do not. Chrome will have Dart support at a later date, no other WebKit vendor is going to implement it. There are literally dozens, just go to caniuse.com and play around for a bit.

The first 2 are simply version issues, whilst the 3rd is nothing to do with the rendering engine. Chrome uses V8, Safari does not.

Re: Opera confirms support for WebKit vendor prefixes

#45

Post by Dylan16807 »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #38
batista wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "as much" part is BS. Webkit browsers are FAR more alike rendering-wise than they are with any third party engine.

Any difference in rendering between Gecko and WebKit is a bug.

And all software has tons.

Re: Opera confirms support for WebKit vendor prefixes

#46

Post by mmahemoff »

talmand wrote: post #41
wmf wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the behavior of the beta feature may be different from the behavior of the final version.

I would prefer an experimental feature not be implemented until at least the syntax has been decided on. Prefixes were implemented so that browsers could have experimental features in place and look where we are now. Adding in a prefix, even a single one, doesn't change the fact that if present then people will use it. If the syntax changes during the -beta prefix phase then lots of stuff will be broken anyway. Can t…

Vendor prefixes have turned out to be unsuccessful, but letting browsers move ahead before standards is the best thing that could have happened for the web. And the web apps we see today are evidence of it.

XHTML shows what happens when you try to agree on everything upfront. You mention agreeing on a basic syntax. The browser developers generally do discuss ideas for new features in basic terms before they release them, and hopefully there's some vague sense of agreement between at least two browsers before a feature goes alpha. But agreeing on anything more than that, instead of just hammering out a working implementation, means developers end up with APIs that are hard to use and don't address their users' needs.

Re: Opera confirms support for WebKit vendor prefixes

#48

Post by batista »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #38
batista wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "as much" part is BS. Webkit browsers are FAR more alike rendering-wise than they are with any third party engine.

Any difference in rendering between Gecko and WebKit is a bug.

No, the two browser have also different levels of implementation compliance with CSS3/CSS4 and other technologies.

So, some of those are not bugs, are differences in features.

Re: Opera confirms support for WebKit vendor prefixes

#49

Post by talmand »

mmahemoff wrote: post #46
talmand wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer an experimental feature not be implemented until at least the syntax has been decided on. Prefixes were implemented so that browsers could have experimental features in place and look where we are now. Adding in a prefix, even a single one, doesn't change the fact that if present then people will use it. If the syntax changes during the -beta prefix phase then lots of stuff will be broken anyway. Can t…

Vendor prefixes have turned out to be unsuccessful, but letting browsers move ahead before standards is the best thing that could have happened for the web. And the web apps we see today are evidence of it. XHTML shows what happens when you try to agree on everything upfront. You mention agreeing on a basic syntax. The browser developers generally do discuss ideas for new features in basic terms before they release t…

Sure, I agree. I just feel that experimental features should be in beta or nightly builds until they are ready for production use. The fact these features were available in current releases means developers will start using them whether they are really ready or not.

Like I said before, they are getting better at agreeing on basic syntax at least. I would say don't make it available until the basics have been decided on. If they are still arguing over details that require a prefix then it isn't ready for release.

Re: Opera confirms support for WebKit vendor prefixes

#50

Post by SquareWheel »

mcpoulet wrote: post #16
numair wrote: post #14

I know everyone talks about fragmentation concerns, and WebKit as the new IE6, but does this argument really make any sense? Internet Explorer was a poorly updated, closed source product that only worked on a single platform; WebKit is open source, maintained by two separate companies (that are basically locked in a cold war), and is available on all major platforms. If anything, why isn't the notion of a single rend…

A monopoly leads to a lack of innovation. A lack of innovation leads to proprietary solutions. Proprietary solutions lead to a lack of innovation. This is what happened with Microsoft and IE6. IE6 launched in 2001. Microsoft didn't care updating it for the next 6 years. This lead to a rise of Flash in websites, which at the time seemed like a good solution to fill the lack of support of CSS. But then it also lead to…

  Adobe never cared about its plugin optimization or security
I don't think that's fair. Adobe released frequent updates for security, and less-frequent but still consistent updates for optimizations/new features.
Post reply on HN