

Opera Confirms WebKit Prefix Usage - brodd
http://farukat.es/journal/2012/04/650-opera-confirms-webkit-prefix-usage

======
mkmcdonald
Here's a better idea, developers: stop using vendor prefixes. Use the
W3C-defined property only. If it isn't standardized yet (i.e. doesn't work),
then don't use it.

Stop opening your Christmas presents at Easter.

(sorry; typed from a mobile device)

~~~
tomjen3
So because people continue to build bad browsers, it is somehow my fault that
their users can't enjoy what the rest of the world gets to see?

Users, stop using broken browser. You are only holding the rest of us back.

~~~
mkmcdonald
"bad" is quite relative here. Have you taken a glance at Chrome, Firefox or
Opera recently? They're very innovative programs.

The salient point is for the developer to use discretion before toying with
bleeding-edge features.

------
driax
I've always thought that this didn't seems so bad idea. We use vendor prefixes
so specific vendor errors and omissions doesn't become a property of the
released standard.

An alternative to vendor prefix could have been draft prefixes instead. So for
example, Firefox could say that we have partial implemented `shadow-box` draft
1, so we call it `-d1-shadow-box`. If Firefox had a number of omissions they
could instead call it `-ff1-shadow-box`. If an later browser supported shadow-
box exactly as Firefox did with the same omisisons, they could simply adopt
`-ff1-shadow-box`, which then most likely would later become the standard.

~~~
justincormack
They are generally unlikely to have good enough test cases to make sure they
implement these the same, as they are experimental.

------
guard-of-terra
Prefixes do not make sense on 2012 since any browser updates itself every few
months.

Therefore it makes zero sense to not support every css property whose meaning
you understand in the next three months (the lifecycle), and in the next
version you can correct it if it deviates.

~~~
tomjen3
Actually all browsers, except IE, should update themselves per default.

The problem is basically that IE and Opera hasn't been run of the market yet.

~~~
luminarious
I'm sorry, but I fail to understand your grief about Opera. They've been
nothing if not standard compliant since before most people had internet
access. Not to mention the huge amount of not-PC-hardware they have provided a
browser for (Opera Mini for feature phones, Opera for TV's with internet,
Opera for Nintendo DS, DSi, 3DS)

I may be biased as long-time users often are, but they're definitely not
comparable to the plague that is IE.

~~~
tomjen3
They have just a few percent of the market and they expect us to write special
CSS codes just for them.

In addition I don't recall them being open source.

If they had taken on IE back in the day, it would have been something else but
I just can't see why I should care today.

~~~
DanBC
> _They have just a few percent of the market_

Like blind users are just a few percent? Or people with motor-control
disabilities are just a few percent?

~~~
tomjen3
Yes. And no, they don't get to play the HTML5 games I make either.

------
makecheck
If laziness got browsers into the vendor prefix mess, laziness could get them
out; the way to do that is to build good developer tools.

For example, a tool could scan CSS files and compare usage of vendor prefixes
against the current state of cross-browser support for "better" alternatives.
Perhaps you see warnings like "property 'webkit-xyz' can be replaced by 'xyz',
which has been supported by the top 4 browsers since 2006".

~~~
tomjen3
Why would I want to run such a tool?

I want the web broken for users of broken browsers. I want those who use IE to
suffer, so that they will upgrade to better browsers.

I want those who use Opera to stop and to start using a better browser.

I am tired of the progress of the web being hindered by this absurd notion
that we should support every browser in existence. We shouldn't.

~~~
hnhg
Better in what sense? I don't like Safari and Chrome has turned into a buggy
mess for me, whereas Opera is always stable. I've given up on the huge bloat
of Firefox. IE is terrible. What's left?

~~~
tomjen3
I disagree with your concept of Chrome being buggy. It is not more buggy than
the rest and has decent support for the new advanced features (with the
exception of the calc css feature).

------
luminarious
I wonder how this will affect those who have started using javascript aids
like <http://leaverou.github.com/prefixfree/>

At this point there are enough prefixes to make manually adding each more than
a bit pointless.

------
Tomis02
WebKit. Killing the open web since 1998.

~~~
stephenr
How exactly is this the fault of the webkit team? Lazy developers caused this,
combined with a stupid response from the browser makers.

~~~
csulok
The root cause of this issue is that prefixed properties are prefixed for too
long as the standardization speed doesn't match the reality of how fast the
web evolves and wants to evolve.

Fast releases and automated updates only make it worse, as two minutes after a
prefixed property is thought up, a seriously large number of users will have
support for it, developers will play with it and then the css code gets stuck
on the internet.

By now most developers are in the mindset that it's okay to let a page differ
in some browsers as long as the difference is only minor/aesthetic and not a
functional handicap. And matching this vendors are perfectly happy with
letting developers use prefixed properties as if they were stable.

Since these vendors make up the whatwg and w3c, they need to get their shit
together and standardize faster and in the meantime developers need incentives
to only use prefixed properties on test sites, which could be as simple as a
console message that it should be removed (like how they did with the
event.layerx deprecation) or having the user enable test mode in their browser
configuration.

~~~
tomjen3
So you want to hold the development of the web back, by giving developers
incentives (really making them look like fools) to slow the progress of the
web.

The only thing the prefix system threatens is a few unimportant browsers that
arguably shouldn't even be around anymore and the pride of the w3c.

And you want to save them, by throwing the future of the web under a bus?

~~~
csulok
No, don't get me wrong. I don't want to hold the development back. Websites,
design wants to evolve fast, faster than anything ever before. I think vendors
get this on some level, that's why they let us use these properties, but they
need to do a better job as a collective: the working groups that draft the
standards. If they standardize faster, there won't be any change in your
ability to use brand new technology at the current rate.

For example: webkit devs think of a new property. They build it, they like it,
they make it publicly available. Chrome guys enable using this in the dev and
beta channel. In a couple weeks they have feedback on performance and stuff.
Whatwg convenes, they finalize the details, webkit guys make a few adjustments
(and it's fine because there's only 2 webpages on the entire internet that's
been using it for a month tops) and then soon it hits the stable channel. This
is what we need. Fast updating browsers could rape the benefits of such a
system very nicely, fast updating is what we need to let the web evolve fast
enough anyway. Slow updating browsers can go die in a fire, they are just as
slow with supporting everything else.

Also, not to nitpick, but opera on the mobile front isn't unimportant. It's
the only alternative to webkit, it's nearly ubiquitous and not a bad
experience on mobile.

------
tomjen3
In a world that has both Chrome and Firefox, there is no reason to use another
browser. They are both open source and available on all PC platforms.

Opera needs to stop accusing us of being lazy, and to die. They had their
attempt and they blew it. Their existens only hinders the progress of the web.

~~~
melling
Should there only be two car manufacturers? Competition is important. We
should always push for open standards so they can be implemented by anyone.
Maybe someday Google will decide that building a better browser is no longer
in their best interest.

~~~
tomjen3
A car needs a road to run on, that is all the infrastructure that has to be
common between cars (your car might need gasoline, but that does not mean that
your neighbors car can't run on diesel or be an electric car).

So you driving an old car does not mean I can't drive a new much more fuel-
efficient car.

A web browser on the other hand has a gigantic interface between it and the
users and as such it is extremely arrogant to assume that the web should be
held back due to your choice of browser.

If you don't like the look of it, or whatever you can totally apply skins or
plugins to make it obey voice commands (I would love to read a blog post about
how you did that) since those things don't interfere with the progress of the
web.

~~~
melling
Are you still talking about Opera? They are aggressively trying to be
compatible? They are even implementing WebGL.

<http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html>

Yes, I agree being held back by one browser is a problem. However, that
browser is IE8.

