Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Chrome Internet Explorer Opera Safari

WebKit As Broken As Older IE Versions? 213

Posted by Soulskill
from the somebody-else-will-fix-it dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It's not everyday that we get to hear about the potential downsides of using WebKit, but that's just what has happened as Dave Methvin, president of the jQuery foundation and a member of the core programming team that builds the widely used Web programming tool, lamented in a blog post yesterday. While most are happy to cheer for IE's demise, perhaps having three main browser engines is still a good thing. For those that work in the space, does the story ring true? Are we perhaps swearing at the wrong browser when implementing 'workarounds' for Firefox or IE?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WebKit As Broken As Older IE Versions?

Comments Filter:
  • by emagery (914122) on Friday February 15, 2013 @11:55AM (#42911003)
    That my webkit browsers have been very poorly behaved; maybe it's just me... but images flicker, forms appear and disappear, sometimes pages just stop loading at random... each patch for mountain lion seems to repair it BRIEFLY... but it always comes back.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Sez Zero (586611)
      It might be just you. I haven't noticed any of these problems, and each ML update makes Safari snappier (TM).
      • by Volanin (935080) on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:24PM (#42911359)

        No, it is not just him. This corruption problem with Safari is a well known problem. It appears that this problem manifests strongly in the macbook retina. There are ongoing discussions about this in many forums, including apple's own:

        https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4148522?start=0&tstart=0 [apple.com]

        As reported by many testers, these problems have NOT been fixed in the soon-to-be-released 10.8.3 update, and they are still present in the Webkit nightly. If you are not experiencing such problems, the most probable reason is that you're using a non-retina display.

        • by dgatwood (11270)

          It has nothing to do with the retina display. I'm seeing it on the non-retina current-generation MacBook Pro. I think it is limited to a single model of Intel GPU, though, as I don't see this behavior on any other machines, and it goes away if I lock my machine to use only the NVIDIA GPU.

        • by sdsucks (1161899)

          197 replies on an Apple.com thread in 6+ months is indicative of an extremely small problem, I'd say, given the sample size of users running mountain lion. Personally, I've had my fair share of issues with my rMBP, but not this one, yet (knocking on wood...). Safari is my primary browser, too.

          Also, users on the thread you link to clearly indicate the problem happens to them on prev-gen macbooks (i.e. non-retina) too.

      • It's not just him. I have some weird issues with Safari stalling but it seems to only affect Slashdot. Go figure...
      • by Aaden42 (198257)

        Most likely video drivers. I've had screen flicker, things scrolling forward, jumping back, then forward again. Granted, I'm running on a heavily modified "unsupported" MacPro1,1, so not especially surprising in my case.

    • by FyRE666 (263011) on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:09PM (#42911169) Homepage

      Must admit, although I primarily use Firefox or Chome; I have no problems at all with IE. I don't understand why people would "cheer for its demise". IE9 is a good browser, and I'm all for competition. Less competition in any space is generally bad for users, if things swing too far toward one engine we'll be in the same position we were when IE6 was the "standard" and people ended up only bothering to test on that browser. That causes stagnation.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:20PM (#42911315)

        In my current position, I have definitely had to implement at the very least twice as many Chrome workarounds as IE in the last six months. I was very surprised to see Chrome behaving oddly and Firefox and IE rendering the pages identically, as prior to that time period, I had never seen Chrome and Firefox render a page in a substantially different way.

        Most of the issues have revolved around Chrome "over-reacting" to what it perceived as an XSS attack.

      • Seeing as you need to use a Microsoft system to run any form of IE, then you have no competition with any other browser on other systems.

      • Internet Explorer is bundled [not replaceable] on one platform Microsoft's. To compete it needs to exist on other platforms and be replaceable on its [not your] OS. As it stands it continues to hold back the innovation on the Web...the polar opposite of what would have happened it real competition exists. All it is is another incompatible product. The fact that XP users are such on Internet explorer 8 says it all.

        • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by hairyfeet (841228)

          How is it not replaceable? none of my customers, family, nor myself has IE on Windows as i uninstalled it and gave them their choice of Dragon or IceDragon. All that is left when you toss IE is the parts of the rendering engine used by HTML based help files that won't run without the IE engine but other than that little part its like IE never existed on our systems. And as others pointed out you no longer need crossover to run IE on Linux or mac, they have a pre-packed version you can easily run on those pl

      • by silviuc (676999)
        IE is not in the position to compete with anything from a feature and standards compliance p.o.v. The only competition it drives is by brute force, on the desktops, since most of them use Windows and IE is the default browser. Luckily, this "strong" position is slowly being eroded and will fade.

        IE is also tied to one platform, and even worse, tied to a certain version of the OS it is running on. People can perfectly well run either Chrome, Opera, Firefox etc on their XP, Vista and later machines, but if
      • by Nemyst (1383049) on Friday February 15, 2013 @01:28PM (#42912257) Homepage

        It's inertia. IE6 was a terrible browser. IE7 and 8 were better, but not markedly so. IE9 was a total turnaround for Microsoft, and IE10 is keeping with that trend.

        However, the damage is already done. On top of it being a Microsoft product and thus being automatically terrible, dangerous and likely to cause the death of a few Linux whackjobs, its bad reputation in the past has stuck to it like a skunk's stink. Is it deserved? Not anymore, no. But you probably have noticed by now that for all our claims of technology being a fast moving sector, a lot of the people working in it are old men shouting at you to get off their lawn ;)

        Opera's shift to WebKit should concern everyone. It's likely a good decision for them, but it consolidates WebKit's position as the dominant rendering engine, and having any dominant engine is bad, as you go from standards directing engines to the dominant engine imposing "standards".

        Ironically, it's Firefox which is still doing its job: never the dominating browser, but always a significant enough force to stop any one browser from entirely dominating. Those who think Mozilla's outlasted their welcome should think again.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15, 2013 @01:54PM (#42912683)

          That's a little dishonest. When IE6 was released in 2001 it was quite good. There was also virtually nothing else on the market as AOL let Netscape flounder for five years and the earliest viable releases of Mozilla were still two years away and Firefox another year after that. IE6 also did quite a bit to tighten up the standards compliance at that time, including fixing the box model. Everything leading up to that point was a huge mess of feature-ramming on the parts of both AOL/Netscape and Microsoft while the W3C slowly toddled along.

          What Microsoft did that was blatantly stupid was to stagnate IE for five years between 6 and 7, effectively halting the development towards better standards compliance. And while Netscape at least had the excuses of recent acquisitions and bad project management Microsoft did this quite intentionally by all-but-disbanding the IE team entirely.

          IE has come a long way since then. IE9 and especially IE10 are very usable browsers in terms of speed and compliance. They're not perfect, but nothing is. What we need above everything else is an accurate measure of compliance. The W3C HTML/CSS Test Suites are the perfect avenue for that, very narrow unit tests of specific rendering functionality. The problem is that it's not as pretty or fancy as some colorful ACID test.

          • by FyRE666 (263011)

            Very true - in fact IE4 was actually way more stable than NS4, and IE5 was a revelation when it came out. It wasn't that MS just used underhand practices (though they certainly did) but their browsers just had better engines. NS5 was terrible. they attempted to correct the biggest problem with NS4 which was that resizing it with JS and dynamic content would either crash the browser completely, or kill the JS engine and screw up the layout (unless you used the proprietary tag). IE4 at the time had no proble

          • by hairyfeet (841228)
            Nice to see somebody remembers. As one of the poor bastards that was trying to use NetScape during that period i can tell you it was deep fried ass, AOHell let it fall apart so we basically only had TWO, count 'em two choices at the time, either use Opera which hit you with a big bandwidth sucking ad banner if you didn't cut them a check or IE which was banner free, not hard to see why IE won as they honestly didn't have anybody else on the field.
        • Mozilla - the Official Opposition Party

        • Opera's shift to WebKit should concern everyone. It's likely a good decision for them, but it consolidates WebKit's position as the dominant rendering engine, and having any dominant engine is bad, as you go from standards directing engines to the dominant engine imposing "standards".

          Absolutely. If Opera were at an overwhelming 3% usage instead of just a stout 2%, this would already be done and dusted.
          /s

        • by paulpach (798828)

          Opera's shift to WebKit should concern everyone. It's likely a good decision for them, but it consolidates WebKit's position as the dominant rendering engine

          What on earth are you talking about, IE still has 55% of the marketshare [netmarketshare.com] how on earth is webkit the dominant rendering engine at 17%-25% ? and how would a 2-3% market share that opera has make any difference?

          having any dominant engine is bad, as you go from standards directing engines to the dominant engine imposing "standards".

          There will always be one engine that has the biggest market share, what, you want them to be split evenly? There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. And it is very nice if the dominant engine was open source and anybody could use it for their own browser, because that will significantly lower the

      • by PapayaSF (721268) on Friday February 15, 2013 @01:29PM (#42912277) Journal

        I have no problems at all with IE. I don't understand why people would "cheer for its demise".

        If you don't hate IE, then you haven't been building websites. For years, the standard process for me was to write perfectly valid HTML and CSS that would render the same way in every other browser, and then spend time screwing around with it until it looked correct in IE. It added 10%, easily, to the cost of every project, and I've read of others claiming 30% or more.

        • by FyRE666 (263011) on Friday February 15, 2013 @01:59PM (#42912773) Homepage

          "If you don't hate IE, then you haven't been building websites."

          First website I built was around 20 years ago. Last website I built completed a couple of weeks ago.

          I've been through pretty much every version of IE, Netscape, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, (and Mozaic). If you're not charging clients extra now for IE6/7 support, then you really need to look at your business practices. I don't "hate" any platform; I just charge clients if they need a platform supported. Of course, you're free to go on some religious or idealogical crusade in your spare time if you like, but getting emotional about a browser doesn't make much sense.

          It's funny to me to hear people claiming IE6 is incapable of rending content etc, when we were making arcade style games, windowing systems, AJAX style requests (piggybacking data in cookies from image src requests) back with IE4 and NS4.

          tl;dr Charge clients for the extra work, or get new clients. Don't work for free and then moan about it.

          • by PapayaSF (721268)

            I stand corrected re building websites. However, you are granting my point. While IE6/7 can be ignored now, for years they were the "standard." It would not have been possible, then, to tell corporate clients: "The price for building your website is $X, but if you want it to look right on the PCs in your office, the price will be $X+10%." That extra 10% was just an extra cost of doing business, and an extra aggravation, in a world with IE6/7. My dislike for those browsers is not "religious or idealogical,"

            • by FyRE666 (263011)

              I thought I was pretty much opposing your point. If you have to do more work for a client, charge them for it. It's like any piece of software development; agreeing the deployment platform(s) is a fundamental part of the technical planning stage. If I'm working on a mobile app, I need to know whether it's Android or iOS (or both), for embedded work I need to know the hardware platforms. For web development, the server architecture and browser/device support are pretty much top of the list. I always try to f

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by Teckla (630646)

            Of course, you're free to go on some religious or idealogical crusade in your spare time if you like, but getting emotional about a browser doesn't make much sense.

            You should use a better browser. It would have pointed out that spelling mistake for you, and even suggested the correct spelling. ;-)

        • I hate them all. Every browser out there either doesn't implement everything they should, or does so with bugs.
          Firefox - Didn't support text-overflow until very recently. Of course most browsers still have issues with implementing it as per W3C draft that supports multiple lines. Improper calc() implementation, for example, 50%-30px fails and calculates to 20%, even when 1%!=1px.
          Safari - Has issues with table layouts that may collapse to 0 width. Issues with column layouts.
          Chrome - Too numerous to list.

          • Add firefox has an issue where an element with a margin contained in another element will use it's margin to space it away from any content outside of the container, and ignore the container, unless the container has a border or some combination there of. I reworked the section instead of trying to figure out the exact cause, but it only exhibited this problem in firefox, including 18.0.2.

      • The problem with IE is that it's hard to test, since both IE and Trident are not available for most platforms.
        Out of all the PCs where I work and at home, none run windows, so it's not easy to test IE, while I can test Chrom{e,ium}, Firefox, Opera, etc on almost any desktop OS.

        • by FyRE666 (263011)

          As I mentioned above. MS make VM images available to test content in various versions of IE for free. These can be used on OSX or Linux (and probably any other platform that supports the VMI format they use). Safari isn't available for Linux either, in case you forgot.

          • Safari uses webkit, and testing in chromium will usually suffice (I haven't come across safari-specific issues that can't be reproduced in chromium either).

            And, yeah, sure, one of my development laptops has 1GiB RAM, another is a PowerPC. I can't even run a windoze VM there. I wouldn't do it if I could either.

            • You can easily run a windows VM on a machine with 1GB of Ram. I can run a windows VM on a Windows host with half that, and I suspect I could do it on a machine with 384MB or less, but I haven't tried.

            • by FyRE666 (263011)

              Not being rude, but if you can't spend £150 or so on a PC with 4GB RAM for development, you're not charging your clients enough! Sounds like that laptop is so old it probably came with a version of Windows with IE5/6 on it anyway!

      • by jez9999 (618189)

        Must admit, although I primarily use Firefox or Chome; I have no problems at all with IE. I don't understand why people would "cheer for its demise". IE9 is a good browser,

        My issue with it is developer tools. Firefox has Firebug, Chrome has Firebug-clone built-in, and IE9 has some crappy popup window when you press F12 which confuses me. I generally develop with Firefox and Chrome and tinker with things to get it working in IE.

        • by FyRE666 (263011)

          I think it's a bit unfair to bash it and call it crap because you haven't spent any time using it. It actually has a very good console, profiler and step-through debugger that's at least as good as Firebug, or the Web Developer plug-in for FF. Personally I develop with Firefox or Chrome when I'm on web projects, but I have taken the time to find my way around IE's debugging tools too.

      • by hairyfeet (841228)

        Nice to see I'm not the only one saying diversity is a GOOD thing. I hated when we had "Works best in IE 6" and I'll rail against "Works best in Webkit" because its bad for everybody...well except the malware writers, the day Webkit is the only one standing they'll probably be popping champagne corks because it will give them a big juicy target that runs everywhere.

        While I haven't used IE since the days of the Mozilla Suite beta (I hated the UI of IE and having a giant target painted on it didn't make it an

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Unitedroad (1026162)

      That my webkit browsers have been very poorly behaved; maybe it's just me... but images flicker, forms appear and disappear, sometimes pages just stop loading at random... each patch for mountain lion seems to repair it BRIEFLY... but it always comes back.

      Desktop Chrome used to be a breath of fresh air a year or two ago, but now, my experience with every new release has been worse than with the previous version. I feel probably they are ignoring it for the Mobile Android and Chrome browsers because they feel it's more important to keep their lead there.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:24PM (#42911353)

      This isnt a 'WebKit' problem, this is a Mountain Lion + Safari problem. Safari started implementing a lot more things to leverage the GPU in rendering and it did not turn out very graceful.

  • Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sez Zero (586611) on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:05PM (#42911121) Journal
    Isn't the answer to these always "No"?
  • by alendit (1454311) on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:06PM (#42911131)

    If you read TFA (haha!) make sure to scroll down to the comment of Pater Kasting (Chrome dev).

    • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Friday February 15, 2013 @02:28PM (#42913227)

      Speaking as another professional web guy who's extremely frustrated with the current situation for very much the reasons in TFA, I find comments like Kasting's frustrating. Yes, there are bug reports. Yes, they have been there for a while, many years in some cases. Yes, the bugs are sometimes in really basic, everyday functionality. Yes, Chrome is by far the worst major browser for reliability based on the objective bug tracking metrics across all the projects I work on. Yes, it has been so consistently for a long time. And yes, there are comments on quite a few of those bug reports making it clear that even glaring problems aren't going to get fixed any time soon despite the developers being well aware of them. In my experience, absolutely everything Methvin said is true, and actually he's being rather kind.

      Unfortunately, on most forums, if you suggest that this is the reality, even backing it up with citations of numerous bugs in basic functionality and even citing specific records in the relevant bug databases that go back years, it's a good bet that you'll be downvoted/moderated into oblivion, or just face the kind of "What, really?" reply Kasting posted as if it's hard to believe the almighty Chrome could actually be as bad as it is. This is the stereotype geek/OSS fanboi issue, where no amount of facts and actual evidence matter in most discussions.

      I've given up even trying to file bugs for everything I find now. I'm sorry, I know it's not constructive, but my clients don't pay me to be someone else's beta tester, and since Chrome is often beta quality software I really would be spending a significant amount of my working hours just doing that.

      Instead, these days we just say that we write to established web standards where possible but the only browsers we'll support officially are recent versions of IE. While these don't have all the bleeding edge shiny, the basic functionality does generally work very reliably, and actually IE9+ have a lot of the more useful recent developments anyway. Just as important, the relatively few serious bugs in the more recent versions of IE tend to be well-known, and the necessary workarounds are well-established and stable because the goalposts don't move every six weeks. That's worth far more to someone developing real software for real clients than scoring X% in some artificial benchmark for supporting standards that don't exist yet, where X% is the box-ticking score but not the number of features that actually work.

    • by Jonner (189691)

      If you read TFA (haha!) make sure to scroll down to the comment of Pater Kasting (Chrome dev).

      BTW, it was bit hard to find this, partly because it wasn't clear which of the two TFAs you were referring to (it's the first link to Methvin's blog post), so here's the response:

      I'm a Chromium developer. It's not clear from your blog post: are the majority of the bugs you're complaining about things that are still broken on the WebKit trunk? Or things that you have to hack around because of the number of out-of-date WebKit-based UAs? If the former, are there bugs on file at bugs.webkit.org?

      I ask this becau

  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:11PM (#42911195)

    I still want to see three viable rendering engines competing in the browser world - and that's what we currently have.

    I know there are a few people who live and die with Opera, but it didn't have enough market share to make any meaningful difference - its switch to WebKit is irrelevant to most of us.

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      Market share is not the only way to make a difference. Opera mattered because they were at the forefront of innovation, they came up with the stuff the others followed. That said, they are still going to develop Webkit, so this is not necessarily bad news. Also, Webkit being opensource it's not really possible to exploit its monopoly in any way, it would be just forked.

    • by Jonner (189691)

      I still want to see three viable rendering engines competing in the browser world - and that's what we currently have.

      I know there are a few people who live and die with Opera, but it didn't have enough market share to make any meaningful difference - its switch to WebKit is irrelevant to most of us.

      I also have never cared about Opera as a web developer. However, the fact that they will now contribute to one of the three major engines, having a history of caring about web standards may end up being good for everyone.

  • by thereitis (2355426) on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:13PM (#42911237) Journal
    I've never been a fan of MSIE, but to say "most" would cheer for its demise seems a little gratuitous. Competition is good.
  • 5 year old bug? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sl4shd0rk (755837) on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:18PM (#42911287)

    That's nothing. Look[1] how long some Flash bugs have been around, or holes in MS Word, Active-X exploites, Windows exploits... it's all a matter of how much time you have to maintain the codebase, and what you prioritize.

    Things with a 98% chance of never affecting anyone will go for a long time before getting the "half-line fix" just like any other software. Yes, including jQuery[2]

    [1] - http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/search [nist.gov]
    [2] - http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/search-results?query=jquery&search_type=all&cves=on [nist.gov]

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Yes. Yes, we are.

    I might hate IE to death, but I would defend its right to exist to the grave for monopoly-weakening reasons right now.

    Webkit and the WhatWG expose the exact behavior that caused all those problems and a stalling of progress back then in the first place. Growing into a quasi-monopoly, having tons of non-standards-conforming "features" (remember the marquee tag?), being the preferred choice of the dumbest and most incompetent at making an educated choice, openly going against the W3C for iTar

    • I might hate IE to death, but I would defend its right to exist to the grave for monopoly-weakening reasons right now.

      Except Microsoft does not compete is abusively bundles IE, The damaged caused by Microsoft set innovation in the web space back years, if IE was a cross platform browser, not welded to their [not your] Operating system, I would agree. Unfortunately it only pollutes standards, without any of the positives that competition brings. Firefox and Chrome [and Opera] have been ahead for so long now its not even funny any more.

      IE explorer should be destroyed with fire. So competition can continue unabated.

    • Monopoly? Perhaps the term you're looking for is "monoculture". No one has, or is ever likely to gain, a monopoly on Webkit. But, as Webkit grows more popular and pervasive, we could find ourselves with an unhealthy monoculture.

      Of course, even that possibility is rather weak, because so many different people, for several different organizations, work on Webkit.

      • by gorzek (647352)

        Monoculture goes hand in hand with standardization. You want things to work the same from system to system.

        The only problem is when the dominant platform fails to implement the standard properly. But it's unfair to talk about "monoculture" as a fundamentally bad thing when we're talking about basic infrastructure--which HTML rendering is, in terms of making the Web work.

    • by hkmwbz (531650)

      Seeing Opera first dump its amazing killer feature (Opera Unite), and then dumb their core engine, is a really sad sight. I declare Opera (the company) as dead as Nokia.

      If Unite had been such a killer feature, it wouldn't have been dumped. Evidently, hardly anyone actually ended up using Unite once the hype died down.

      Declaring Opera as dead as Nokia is weird to say the least. Nokia ditched their dying platform for a dead platform (Windows Phone still doesn't sell!). Opera is ditching their platform which is

  • by Sarten-X (1102295) on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:21PM (#42911331) Homepage

    According to the author, Opera should spend their time and money to fix old edge-case bugs in WebKit, but he shouldn't have any obligation to contribute patches himself.

    Sorry sir, but that's not how open-source development should work. If you're going to spend time rebuilding your own codebase, evaluating whether a ton of old workarounds are still necessary because of missing "half-line fix[es]", you should consider spending some of that time contributing such simple patches upstream to improve the situation. With IE, that was never an option, but it is with WebKit. In an open-source stack, the only workarounds that should be accepted as the regular course of business are ones that are prohibitively difficult to implement in the dependency, or where the patches have been submitted and rejected.

    What's most entertaining is the reference to the "tragedy of the commons" in TFA's title. Tragedy of the commons is not something being so commonly used that it's improved in places you don't like. Rather, it's where everybody using the common property thinks that maintenance is someone else's problem. Mr. Methvin, WebKit's maintenance is as much your problem as it is Opera's.

    • by kawika (87069) on Friday February 15, 2013 @04:24PM (#42915085)

      I'm the author.

      So let ME get this straight: I get paid nothing for my work on jQuery, where we clean up behind all the major browsers so that people don't need to wait months or years for bugs to be fixed. We also report these bugs to the appropriate vendors with clear test cases; as you can imagine we get our share of crappy bug reports and don't want to do that to these guys. You would also like me to donate more time to become an expert at Webkit to the point where I can fix these bugs immediately on their side, despite the fact that several major well-funded companies (Google, Apple, BlackBerry, and now Opera) are paying people to (NOT) fix these bugs. Sorry, but one unpaid volunteer open-source job is enough for me.

      I would love for all the WebKit contributors to get together and say, "We'll show that guy! HAHA we fixed all your bugs so THERE!" There are rumors, however, that Opera is laying off 200 engineers and I seriously doubt they'll keep a large staff of people on fixing WebKit bugs. I've emailed Peter Kasting privately and think he is sincere in trying to get some of these fixed though.

    • by Jonner (189691)

      According to the author, Opera should spend their time and money to fix old edge-case bugs in WebKit, but he shouldn't have any obligation to contribute patches himself.

      Sorry sir, but that's not how open-source development should work. If you're going to spend time rebuilding your own codebase, evaluating whether a ton of old workarounds are still necessary because of missing "half-line fix[es]", you should consider spending some of that time contributing such simple patches upstream to improve the situation. With IE, that was never an option, but it is with WebKit. In an open-source stack, the only workarounds that should be accepted as the regular course of business are ones that are prohibitively difficult to implement in the dependency, or where the patches have been submitted and rejected.

      So, by your reasoning, Opera, Apple and Google should all contribute workarounds for their respective browsers to jQuery as well? Methvin seems to have his own high profile Free and Open Source project to sink his time into so expecting him to contribute fixes to Webkit isn't any more reasonable than expecting Webkit authors to contribute fixes to jQuery. While people from either project contributing directly to the other may happen, it's probably not usually the best use of either side's time.

      This is not a

  • by sootman (158191) on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:31PM (#42911475) Homepage Journal

    "WebKit As Broken As Older IE Versions?"

    Yes! Because any two things that are not perfect are equally bad. :-|

  • I certainly spend more time dealing with webkit quirks than IE quirks these days, thanks to the demise of IE6 and IE7.

    So far, few of the visual 'bugs' I've encountered in webkit have been strictly 'non-standard'.

    They pretty much ll fall into two categories:

    1. 1. Experimental, i.e. not yet standardised, CSS
    2. 2. CSS where the standards are silent on the precise method of implementing rendering, e.g. list markers.
  • by Al Al Cool J (234559) on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:49PM (#42911715)

    Probably unrelated to TFA, but I made an amazing discovery about the webkit-based browser Rekonq 0.8 in Kubuntu 11.10 - it doesn't show commercials in streaming video. Whatever mechanism is commonly used to insert commercials into a flash video stream - it doesn't work in this version of Rekonq. I'm talking youtube, ustream, livestream, social cam sites, porn sites, and television networks that stream their own shows - no commercials ever. It's glorious =)

    I'm actually reluctant to upgrade in case this "bug" has been fixed.

  • I'm not sure you can blame WebKit for JS issues unless it's tied directly to the Dom. But either way I left chrome because it is a bit shit actually. The two biggest things are how often tabs go sad faced and won't fix themselves on refresh and if something isn't perfect in the HTML it can render an obscene amount of elements trying to resolve it and performance is out the window. This has gone on for years and probably still does. So with that and being spied on it seemed going back to Firefox was the same

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp

Working...