4 ms·

> lol the CSS Box Alignment Module spec started in 2012 lol and in 2012 it didn't have even half what it has now and the last change to that spec was only a w

> lol the CSS Box Alignment Module spec started in 2012 lol and in 2012 it didn't have even half what it has now and the last change to that spec was only a week ago > I am sad that Safari doesn't have ~33% of CSS Box Alignment Module after a decade gap wasn't in the spec a decade ago. I, for one, am glad that Safari actually waits for the spec to stabilize bit instead of rushing headlong into something that will likely change.

rektide 5y ago
https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-css-align-3-20170906/#gaps https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-css-align-3-20170906/#gaps gaps is 4 years old. this company is trash & awful & their pathetic negligence is fucking up the web something wicked. it's obvious as fuck what sabotage this is & it sucks. this isnt caution it's anti-competitive against the internet. that the spec is changing is a huge cop out. apple can't drag their feet for years on every spec while preventing apple users from getting a better web experience, but they do. it's a trashfire way to treat the web, to hold it back. then to be constantly breaking features? apple doesn't just not care, they chronically underfund & debilitate the web.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > gaps is 4 years old. Oh, look. You managed to look it up. So, it's no longer "over a decade old" but "this particular thing that I think Safari must implement is 4 years old". Meanwhile: - that "4 year old" part of the specification didn't fully specify how percentage lengths work - the behaviour of 'normal' wasn't specified - gap shorthand only applied to grid containers (now it also applies to other containers) - gap shorthand was underspecified (how it's animated, what are initial values etc.) And that's only the things that I could immediately see. And this is only for one property out of dozens in a single standard out of thousands. > it's obvious as fuck what sabotage this is Whatever this is, it's definitely not sabotage. > apple can't drag their feet for years on every spec while preventing apple users from getting a better web experience, but they do. They can, and they will. Is the web a worse experience? Can't say a feel a difference because you didn't get that one single toy you so passionately care about. > it's a trashfire way to treat the web, to hold it back. Safari is only slightly behind Firefox on the number of features (aka Web APIs): https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence
  - rektide 5y ago
    I don't get why anyone would so aggresively go out of their way to carry water for a company that doesn't even allow users to use a modern web browser if they wanted to. are you paid to write this? what is your reason for being such an apple boosterist? do you really think waiting for specs to stabize is critical important to your day to day, that not having emerging features somehow saves you anything? why does absence buy you? standardization requires implementation. we need the data. we need people to try things to succeed in making good standards. in my view, waiting till it's done to start is not an option. it's how not to make a standard. I don't understand why you would work so hard to justify anti-web behaviors, particularly ones users are so vulgarly locked into.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > aggresively go out of their way > are you paid to write this? > what is your reason for being such an apple boosterist? I see you prefer ad hominem attacks instead of facts and reality. I'm not google to engage in such a dialog.
      - rektide 5y ago
        To repeat, I genuinely don't understand why you would work so hard to justify anti-web behaviors, particularly ones users are so vulgarly locked into. It seems overwhelmingly weird. If you want to see that as an attack, well ok. That's not how I intended it. I'm super confused by this. I think you should try to tackle this questioning, not coward out. It seems ultra-convenient for you to dip out at this moment, to refuse questioning, after having been on the attack & aggressive against other people for so long. You have been a knife against choice, & now you are refusing any defense or explanation of yourself. I'm not sorry you don't like how I ask, but it's not ad-hominem. And I think you should be held to account, provide explanation for why you would so aggressively attack user choice & acess to a modern web.
        dmitriid 5y ago
        > If you want to see that as an attack, well ok > coward out. > It seems ultra-convenient for you to dip out at this moment > aggressive against other people > refusing any defense or explanation of yourself. > I think you should be held to account What a charming person you are. "I'm not attacking you", keeps attacking. "These are not ad-hominem", continues discussing my person, wants to hold me accountable, calls me a coward. Oh please, do go on.

rektide 5y ago

https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-css-align-3-20170906/#gaps https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-css-align-3-20170906/#gaps gaps is 4 years old. this company is trash & awful & their pathetic negligence is fucking up the web something wicked. it's obvious as fuck what sabotage this is & it sucks. this isnt caution it's anti-competitive against the internet. that the spec is changing is a huge cop out. apple can't drag their feet for years on every spec while preventing apple users from getting a better web experience, but they do. it's a trashfire way to treat the web, to hold it back. then to be constantly breaking features? apple doesn't just not care, they chronically underfund & debilitate the web.

dmitriid 5y ago
> gaps is 4 years old. Oh, look. You managed to look it up. So, it's no longer "over a decade old" but "this particular thing that I think Safari must implement is 4 years old". Meanwhile: - that "4 year old" part of the specification didn't fully specify how percentage lengths work - the behaviour of 'normal' wasn't specified - gap shorthand only applied to grid containers (now it also applies to other containers) - gap shorthand was underspecified (how it's animated, what are initial values etc.) And that's only the things that I could immediately see. And this is only for one property out of dozens in a single standard out of thousands. > it's obvious as fuck what sabotage this is Whatever this is, it's definitely not sabotage. > apple can't drag their feet for years on every spec while preventing apple users from getting a better web experience, but they do. They can, and they will. Is the web a worse experience? Can't say a feel a difference because you didn't get that one single toy you so passionately care about. > it's a trashfire way to treat the web, to hold it back. Safari is only slightly behind Firefox on the number of features (aka Web APIs): https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence
- rektide 5y ago
  I don't get why anyone would so aggresively go out of their way to carry water for a company that doesn't even allow users to use a modern web browser if they wanted to. are you paid to write this? what is your reason for being such an apple boosterist? do you really think waiting for specs to stabize is critical important to your day to day, that not having emerging features somehow saves you anything? why does absence buy you? standardization requires implementation. we need the data. we need people to try things to succeed in making good standards. in my view, waiting till it's done to start is not an option. it's how not to make a standard. I don't understand why you would work so hard to justify anti-web behaviors, particularly ones users are so vulgarly locked into.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > aggresively go out of their way > are you paid to write this? > what is your reason for being such an apple boosterist? I see you prefer ad hominem attacks instead of facts and reality. I'm not google to engage in such a dialog.
    - rektide 5y ago
      To repeat, I genuinely don't understand why you would work so hard to justify anti-web behaviors, particularly ones users are so vulgarly locked into. It seems overwhelmingly weird. If you want to see that as an attack, well ok. That's not how I intended it. I'm super confused by this. I think you should try to tackle this questioning, not coward out. It seems ultra-convenient for you to dip out at this moment, to refuse questioning, after having been on the attack & aggressive against other people for so long. You have been a knife against choice, & now you are refusing any defense or explanation of yourself. I'm not sorry you don't like how I ask, but it's not ad-hominem. And I think you should be held to account, provide explanation for why you would so aggressively attack user choice & acess to a modern web.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > If you want to see that as an attack, well ok > coward out. > It seems ultra-convenient for you to dip out at this moment > aggressive against other people > refusing any defense or explanation of yourself. > I think you should be held to account What a charming person you are. "I'm not attacking you", keeps attacking. "These are not ad-hominem", continues discussing my person, wants to hold me accountable, calls me a coward. Oh please, do go on.