4 ms·

It seems to me that nowadays Webkit/Blink has replaced IE for developers not caring about interoperability – with some even going so far as to claim „IE? but no

It seems to me that nowadays Webkit/Blink has replaced IE for developers not caring about interoperability – with some even going so far as to claim „IE? but nobody uses that!“.

Semaphor 10y ago
Eh, it always only seems to be the case for experiments. Stuff that has no use case besides "looking fun" and probably being a fun challenge to work at. There are a few FF only, and many that are Chrome only.
Manishearth 10y ago
FWIW clip-path is specced and in CR stage right now. I think it's okay to implement it provided that there is an understanding that any further changes are reflected even if it breaks existing code using the new property. All browsers do this. Firefox implements around 88 properties (30 of these are "logical properties", which aren't exactly new properties) that Chrome doesn't[1] and Chrome implements around 68 properties that Firefox doesn't[2]. The numbers are a bit skewed here. My method of collecting the list of "properties that Firefox implements" included preffed-off properties, but the same is not true for Chrome, so for example the `grid` property shows up as implemented in Firefox but not Chrome even though both have it behind a pref/flag. However, there are some properties implemented in Firefox without being behind a pref (ruby-align, scroll-snap-foo, image-orientation are examples). ------------------- I do feel that in general Blink does push a lot of nonstandard (or not on the standards path) features into the web at times. But I don't have anything to back that assertion up. Blink is being interoperable in this particular case. [1]: https://manishearth.github.io/css-properties-list/?stylo=show&servo=show&firefox=only&chrome=hide&mdn=false&alexa=false https://manishearth.github.io/css-properties-list/?stylo=sho... [2]: https://manishearth.github.io/css-properties-list/?stylo=show&servo=show&firefox=only&chrome=hide&mdn=false&alexa=false https://manishearth.github.io/css-properties-list/?stylo=sho...
- erlehmann_ 10y ago
  Clarification: My comment was not primarily about browser developers, it was about web developers that do not care about interoperability – and either do not test in non-Webkit/Blink browsers or declare that for some reason (e.g. marketshare, “it is just an experiment”), other browsers are irrelevant in their specific case.
  - Manishearth 10y ago
    Ah, fair point. Yeah, this irks me a lot.
    - lukehaas 10y ago
      It's important for web developers to experiment with new browser features. Browser vendors encourage this as it can help them with crushing bugs early and refining their specs.
      - Manishearth 10y ago
        Yes, which is why experimenting with features on the standards track is okay. At a certain stage it becomes less likely that the feature will change behavior. The problem arises when the experimentation is done with entirely new features that the browser wants to push (features which haven't been discussed and somewhat settled on with other browsers). If they aren't behind a flag, sites start using it, and then you have to support the legacy syntax forever. clip-path is on the standards track. It's not going to change much. So browser vendors exposing it by default is fine. (However, if you're building an experiment using these, at least test in other browsers and put up a warning that it won't work in some browsers. A lot of the interior issues today are because folks only bother to test in chrome. Ultimately this means that all browsers have to copy Chrome bugs to make things work.)

It seems to me that nowadays Webkit/Blink has replaced IE for developers not caring about interoperability – with some even going so far as to claim „IE? but nobody uses that!“.

Semaphor 10y ago

Eh, it always only seems to be the case for experiments. Stuff that has no use case besides "looking fun" and probably being a fun challenge to work at. There are a few FF only, and many that are Chrome only.

Manishearth 10y ago

FWIW clip-path is specced and in CR stage right now. I think it's okay to implement it provided that there is an understanding that any further changes are reflected even if it breaks existing code using the new property. All browsers do this. Firefox implements around 88 properties (30 of these are "logical properties", which aren't exactly new properties) that Chrome doesn't[1] and Chrome implements around 68 properties that Firefox doesn't[2]. The numbers are a bit skewed here. My method of collecting the list of "properties that Firefox implements" included preffed-off properties, but the same is not true for Chrome, so for example the `grid` property shows up as implemented in Firefox but not Chrome even though both have it behind a pref/flag. However, there are some properties implemented in Firefox without being behind a pref (ruby-align, scroll-snap-foo, image-orientation are examples). ------------------- I do feel that in general Blink does push a lot of nonstandard (or not on the standards path) features into the web at times. But I don't have anything to back that assertion up. Blink is being interoperable in this particular case. [1]: https://manishearth.github.io/css-properties-list/?stylo=show&servo=show&firefox=only&chrome=hide&mdn=false&alexa=false https://manishearth.github.io/css-properties-list/?stylo=sho... [2]: https://manishearth.github.io/css-properties-list/?stylo=show&servo=show&firefox=only&chrome=hide&mdn=false&alexa=false https://manishearth.github.io/css-properties-list/?stylo=sho...

erlehmann_ 10y ago
Clarification: My comment was not primarily about browser developers, it was about web developers that do not care about interoperability – and either do not test in non-Webkit/Blink browsers or declare that for some reason (e.g. marketshare, “it is just an experiment”), other browsers are irrelevant in their specific case.
- Manishearth 10y ago
  Ah, fair point. Yeah, this irks me a lot.
  - lukehaas 10y ago
    It's important for web developers to experiment with new browser features. Browser vendors encourage this as it can help them with crushing bugs early and refining their specs.
    - Manishearth 10y ago
      Yes, which is why experimenting with features on the standards track is okay. At a certain stage it becomes less likely that the feature will change behavior. The problem arises when the experimentation is done with entirely new features that the browser wants to push (features which haven't been discussed and somewhat settled on with other browsers). If they aren't behind a flag, sites start using it, and then you have to support the legacy syntax forever. clip-path is on the standards track. It's not going to change much. So browser vendors exposing it by default is fine. (However, if you're building an experiment using these, at least test in other browsers and put up a warning that it won't work in some browsers. A lot of the interior issues today are because folks only bother to test in chrome. Ultimately this means that all browsers have to copy Chrome bugs to make things work.)