OSNews

why are you wondering? it has 7 versions advantage. wait that IE gets so mature

/* just in case, it was sarcasm */

Er, how?

-webkit extension ... it is being used a lot especially on mobile phones.

Expect a lot of site not to look right in anything other than webkit based browsers.

Yeah, except they do and Chrome (and WebKit) is pretty damn standards compliant, as opposed to IE6. So basically, you're just making stuff up to get some sort of "point" on an internet messageboard.

Way to go and miss the point of what I actually said.

I am not trying to make a point ...

Look in firebug or chrome inspector yourself.

I a web dev and I regularly talk to mobile devs that say they use the webkit properties because it works on older mobile browsers as well as newer ones.

I am not the only one that has thought this

http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/02/is-google-chrome-the-new-ie...

Quirks mode blog.

http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2010/02/the_iphone_obse.htm...

cult of mac

http://www.cultofmac.com/29481/developer-mobile-safari-is-todays-ie...

But hey I am just trying to contrary according to you.

EDIT: Also almost forgot

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397158,00.asp



And



This is Opera saying this!

Edited 2011-12-16 13:53 UTC

Thank you. That's better.

It was just an expansion of what I originally said. You could have done the googling yourself.

The first time I heard it, is when me and a friend was talking about how -webkit extensions are problem .. and my mate said "webkit is going to become IE6".

Edited 2011-12-16 15:13 UTC

But webkit is open source, unlike IE6. If webkit become the de facto standard, so be it. There's no vendor lock-in.

You are right, and projects like jQuery Mobile try to address it.

The thing is, the -webkit extension is the PROPER way to target a browser and for a browser to add CSS extensions.

So, why is this Chrome or Google's fault? Because everyone else was so damned slow to implement that people started adopting the only reasonable way to get the extensions to work?

I am well aware of this.

Which is exactly what happened with IE6 ... There wasn't any competitor that was as good at the time. So people just wrote for IE6. Which was my point all along

To target experimental and in‐development standards, yes. They aren’t considered PROPER for production use. It’s kinda obvious that they aren’t standardised because they have the vendor prefix.


If they were just implementing HTML5 without quirks then I would agree.
Yet WebKit has awkward behaviours just like IE6 did, and just like Microsoft, Apple&Google have been creating, implementing and then publishing standards. That’s not how you make a good Web standard, it needs many eyes.


To implement… webkit originated standards? no.

This comment makes zero sense. IE6 was painful because of its HTML compliancy issues with the HTML rendering engine and IE specific extensions which are not an issue with Chrome. Web devs the world over are glad Chrome is gaining market share. Also the recent announcement from MS of them pushing newer IE revs to XP users will help to further eliminate IE6 users which is very good.

Edited 2011-12-16 11:39 UTC

IE6 was also more sane, more standards compliant than what it displaced. Web devs the world over, back then, were (IIRC) rather glad how IE6 gained market share from the old Netscape.

Google does push into Chrome things fairly unique, bound to remain so at least for some time (SPDY, NaCl - with the latter, Mozilla and Opera seem to not want to implement it; I doubt MS will do it; and even if Apple would, Safari just hovers at few %)

At least with Webkit, it might at worst settle on roughly "~one OSS engine shared and developed by everybody" which would still be a marked improvement.

One glance at the stats in question ( http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-monthly-200807-201112 ) shows IE6 at 1.79% - it has been fairly irrelevant for quite some time.
And automatic updates shouldn't change much with its (probably) main remaining stronghold, ~company PCs (but they also don't matter that much with "outside world" websites)

Edited 2011-12-16 13:11 UTC

Nightly build of FF support SPDY, Opera plan to, but who care about Opera

Yeah that's what "bound to remain so at least for some time" would mean... (alphas / plan to)

As for who cares about Opera - oh, I don't know, perhaps just the majority of mobile browser users? ( http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-200807-201112 )
And with desktop Opera, perhaps Ukraine ( http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-UA-monthly-200807-201112 ); similarly Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan ...most of CIS, basically; or Georgia. Also, to a lesser degree, few Central European and Baltic EU countries.

It not about standard's compliance ... it is about how people tend to abuse it.

http://www.osnews.com/thread?500302

Except it isn't total shite.

IE6 was pretty good back in 2001 ... today it is. But then again you hate anything made my Microsoft regardless of quality.

http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2010/02/the_iphone_obse.htm...

I'll take the Author of Quirks mode blog opinion in higher regard than yours.

Edited 2011-12-16 13:35 UTC

Difference: Microsoft stopped developing IE after v6 was released. Google and a number of other companies are continuing to develop webkit continuously to add support for new standards, improve performance & security and speed. So, there is no chance for Chrome to become stagnant and hold back standards the way IE did.

In fact, this article is about Chrome 15, and Chrome 16 has already been released. Because of Chrome's auto-update system, almost all installs of Chrome v15 would already have been upgraded.

IE6 & 7, on the other hand, are still common on the web several years after their successors have been released.

It is not about the "how good it is" ... it is the fact that people will develop for WebKit and more specifically Chrome and not other browsers which will put Everything else at a disadvantage.

As a web dev, from the bottom of my heart i wanna say "FUCK YOU SIR!"

I second your opionion

Lol, wow. People seriously lack a sense of humor. I think it was patently obvious that I was joking.

EDIT: Joking about the second part, that is. I stand by the point that I made in the first line.

Edited 2011-12-16 12:01 UTC

As you probably know by now, IE will start doing automatic updates very soon.

True, and then we might see IE9/IE8 take the top spot again. There will still be a split, however, because XP is only going up to IE8.

Also, I don't know how many people still use IE6 or below, but they are going to be left out completely.

No, you're confusing "lack a sense of humour" with "have a good sense of humour and that's why they're not particularly amused, not laughing" with you.

Yeah, I'm kind of a sucker for sarcasm/lampooning. Not everyone's taste, I'll admit.

See, that's still not the same as good sarcasm/lampooning...

We hate patents

On the web, instead of checking the version number, you should verify if a particular feature is implemented and then use it.

Tools like Modernizr make this easy. Use that instead of tracking version numbers.

Also, for a browser like Google that upgrades installs almost invisibly, it's makes sense to just test in the current version (and if necessary, one version back). If someone's using Chrome, they are most likely using the latest version.

From a programmer's point of view who also knows that this type of version numbering is a natural consequence of "multi-channel" development, this is easy and you don't have to continously decide on what feature or fix would justify a .1 or .5, etc. or major version bump.

OMG... I've got the following things installed, version control be damned!

"less" version "444" a pager program similar to more

"libflickrnet2.1.5-cil" version "25277" Flickr.Net API Library

"libgudev-1.0-0" version "175" GObject-based wrapper library for libudev

"libudev0" version "175" libudev shared library

"xterm" version "276" X terminal emulator

So, these are all crap... because of the high version number. Ahh... ok, going to remove them now.

P.S. no not really going to remove them. You are a Dolt.

Thank you sir. I had never noticed that before. It is a great response to people who get all excited about escalating version numbers.

On my system, a fully up-to-date RHEL 6.1 system, I have "less" version "436". So, that just shows how quickly this version number is escalating. I will remove it immediately. :-)

I wasn't referring to having to check the version number in anyway - I was merely referring to the version numbering they have in place is simply ridiculous given FF has been around for considerably longer than Chrome.

Increment updates usually go .1, .2, .3 etc... not in whole numbers.

A larger number doesn't automatically mean something is better than something else - are job public that dense to fall for this dirty trick? Wait, don't answer that - the answer is probably yes.

You're pointing out that the overall user base for each browser has grown. The article was pointing out that Chrome's market share has grown at the cost of IE's market share.

These do not contradict.

I'm not sure if that's strictly the case... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups#Largest_religio...

Of course, those do use ads in Gmail, Google Adsense in general, nowadays - and, curiously, there's also http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/