4 ms·

You missed his point. He mentioned IE8+ and Opera as working targets to highlight the fact Safari was being lame. He said every browser - that would include com

You missed his point. He mentioned IE8+ and Opera as working targets to highlight the fact Safari was being lame. He said every browser - that would include complaint ones like firefox and chrome. He also specifically said he avoided browser specific hacks.

ninkendo 11y ago
Saying "I didn't use any browser-specific hacks" with HTML4 is a strange statement, seeing as how many non-trivial layouts in html4 (and I'm assuming the older CSS standards that would typically go along with it) require browser-specific hacks to work. But honestly, I can't know because he's not naming anything specific anyway, just an anecdote about how IE8 was great at being standards-compliant and safari wasn't. Which is such an extraordinary claim (and is so contrary to established precedent) that without any extraordinary evidence, I have a lot of trouble accepting it. (And it's amazing how many people think "I'm not doing any browser hacks" while they're using something like jQuery, which is a library 100% devoted to doing browser hacks for you while abstracting you from that fact.)
- zamalek 11y ago
  > Saying "I didn't use any browser-specific hacks" with HTML4 is a strange statement I was working on top of a huge CSS framework - the majority of styling work I did was tiny tweaks to styles where the appropriate hacks had already been solved. Also I didn't mention layout. The specific pain point was contenteditable in combination with JS - by the time I got to the code everything surrounding my little problem-space had been solved by the rest of the team. Again, specifically, Safari demonstrated wildly different behavior within that specific space, where other browsers only behaved marginally different (a relative term, contenteditable is a complete mess, sadly, still in HTML5) in a way that I could find a viable subset of functionality that worked consistently.
  - ninkendo 11y ago
    > I was working on top of a huge CSS framework Well, that's the whole thing then, isn't it? The huge CSS framework probably had tons of hacks (as you say) to make things work in IE8... it's a bit disingenuous to say you wrote everything to be clean and without browser hacks, if the hacks all exist but are buried under a "huge CSS framework". Your whole experience could probably be restated as "I was working with a CSS framework that did a bunch of cross-browser hacks for me, and the tweaks I made to it didn't work in safari", which is a pretty uninteresting statement, because it's equally likely that any issues you had in safari are the fault of the CSS, and not the browser. (In fact, much much more likely.)
    - zamalek 11y ago
      > the fault of the CSS Did you miss the whole of my second paragraph? > Also I didn't mention layout
addicted44 11y ago
Opera went out of its way to ensure non-standard stuff targeted towards specific IE versions also worked in Opera. The downsides of being a browser no one cares about. Something working in opera doesn't mean it is standards compliant.

ninkendo 11y ago

Saying "I didn't use any browser-specific hacks" with HTML4 is a strange statement, seeing as how many non-trivial layouts in html4 (and I'm assuming the older CSS standards that would typically go along with it) require browser-specific hacks to work. But honestly, I can't know because he's not naming anything specific anyway, just an anecdote about how IE8 was great at being standards-compliant and safari wasn't. Which is such an extraordinary claim (and is so contrary to established precedent) that without any extraordinary evidence, I have a lot of trouble accepting it. (And it's amazing how many people think "I'm not doing any browser hacks" while they're using something like jQuery, which is a library 100% devoted to doing browser hacks for you while abstracting you from that fact.)

zamalek 11y ago
> Saying "I didn't use any browser-specific hacks" with HTML4 is a strange statement I was working on top of a huge CSS framework - the majority of styling work I did was tiny tweaks to styles where the appropriate hacks had already been solved. Also I didn't mention layout. The specific pain point was contenteditable in combination with JS - by the time I got to the code everything surrounding my little problem-space had been solved by the rest of the team. Again, specifically, Safari demonstrated wildly different behavior within that specific space, where other browsers only behaved marginally different (a relative term, contenteditable is a complete mess, sadly, still in HTML5) in a way that I could find a viable subset of functionality that worked consistently.
- ninkendo 11y ago
  > I was working on top of a huge CSS framework Well, that's the whole thing then, isn't it? The huge CSS framework probably had tons of hacks (as you say) to make things work in IE8... it's a bit disingenuous to say you wrote everything to be clean and without browser hacks, if the hacks all exist but are buried under a "huge CSS framework". Your whole experience could probably be restated as "I was working with a CSS framework that did a bunch of cross-browser hacks for me, and the tweaks I made to it didn't work in safari", which is a pretty uninteresting statement, because it's equally likely that any issues you had in safari are the fault of the CSS, and not the browser. (In fact, much much more likely.)
  - zamalek 11y ago
    > the fault of the CSS Did you miss the whole of my second paragraph? > Also I didn't mention layout

addicted44 11y ago

Opera went out of its way to ensure non-standard stuff targeted towards specific IE versions also worked in Opera. The downsides of being a browser no one cares about. Something working in opera doesn't mean it is standards compliant.