4 ms·
> I really, really dislike the idea of non-webkit vendors implementing support for webkit prefixes. Stick to your own prefixes. Don't break the rules to make up
by azakai 15y ago
> I really, really dislike the idea of non-webkit vendors implementing support for webkit prefixes. Stick to your own prefixes. Don't break the rules to make up for lazy or bad developers.
I sympathize with the sentiment. But you are asking all the non-WebKit browsers to not render the mobile web properly.
Like it or not, WebKit won on mobile. People wrote tons of websites that only render correctly on the iOS and Android browsers.
Other browsers can't change that by not implementing the WebKit prefixes. In fact without implementing them, they make it harder for themselves to gain market share - the only thing that can prevent a single implementation like IE or WebKit from becoming a de-facto standard.
Other browsers can evangelize - go around and ask website makers to write to standards, not to what currently works in WebKit. They are already doing that as much as they can. It isn't making much of a difference.
- cageface 15y agoThe web is at enough of a disadvantage WRT native apps as it is. If you disallow the kinds of enhancements that depend on a more intimate relationship with the browser, like -webkit prefixes, you put them that much further behind.
- zobzu 15y agoexactly, and that is why webkit (but not only - aka the extensions) are the problem. if the browser has a large market share people will use it 'wrong' aka not just for experimentation. its like waving with free candy and blaming people for taking it.
- dave1010uk 15y agoI'm not sure what you mean by "WebKit won on mobile" (maybe you mean in US) but you may be interested to know that the most popular mobile browser is Opera [1]. WebKit still has a majority when you combine iPhone, Android and Nokias but I wouldn't say it's won. The race for the mobile web isn't over yet. [1] http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2012/01/browser_stats_f_2.html http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2012/01/browser_stat...
- rplnt 15y agoThe Opera's dominance would probably be higher if most of the stats wouldn't come from US.
- sambeau 15y agoWebkit is twice as prevalent compared to Opera even when using his linked statistics.
- rplnt 15y agoOne is browser and one is rendering engine. But yes, this discussion is about the latter. I was just commenting on his post. Still, these stats are very inaccurate in what we're using them for.
- sambeau 15y agoOpera is not the most popular mobile browser. If you look at the graph he links to they compare Opera to Android, iPhone, iPod Touch separately despite all being Webkit based. Add them up and you have around 43% well more than the 18% shown for Opera. If you look at the table you linked to Android plus Mobile Safari also gives 44%. Opera has 22%.
- dave1010uk 15y agoUsing these stats, Opera is the most popular mobile browser but WebKit is the most popular mobile browser rendering engine / framework. Whilst WebKit being > 50% of rendering engines definitely counts for something, my point is that non-WebKit browsers account for a very significant chunk of the mobile web. From PPK again: http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2009/10/there_is_no_web.html http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2009/10/there_is_no_...
- azakai 15y ago> I'm not sure what you mean by "WebKit won on mobile" (maybe you mean in US) Aside from low-end phones in the far east, WebKit dominates in the mobile space. In the US and Europe, there are basically two smartphone OSes: Android and iOS, everything else is tiny. And Android and iOS both use WebKit. So WebKit won.
- masklinn 15y ago> But you are asking all the non-WebKit browsers to not render the mobile web properly. I don't think that's a fair caracterisation. It's perfectly proper to render a mobile site as you're told do, which is what browsers correctly do right now.