No rendering engine is 100% with CSS3 and HTML5 and that's what they're all gearing towards so I don't really care if it's WebKIt, Blink, or Gecko. Also, while a lot of browsers may use WebKit, they don't all neccesarily use the same version so you're in the boat of X being compatible with one browser, but not the other, anyway. Also, I am a Web Dev.
So maybe you view all the various rendering issues as "Job Security"?
Microsoft wants a monoculture (with Trident) and that's bad. Microsoft avoids a monoculture (by not using Webkit) and that's bad too I really pity the Spartan developers. To people like you, there is literally nothing they can do 'right'.
I hate to Reply twice to the same message; but THIS illustrates my point:
List of WebKit-Based Browsers (and other Applications)
Microsoft wants a monoculture (with Trident) and that's bad. Microsoft avoids a monoculture (by not using Webkit) and that's bad too I really pity the Spartan developers. To people like you, there is literally nothing they can do 'right'.
No, you missed my point:
My point was: Sometimes (and this is one, IMHO), "Monocultures" (especially when they involve the implementation of community-agreed-upon "standards" (like approved HTML versions)) are actually HELPFUL to those who Develop against those STANDARDS (and ultimately, to everyone who is "touched" by the implementation thereof.
In other words, I was saying that, since nearly all Browsers are WebKit-based at this point, wouldn't it make sense for any new Browsers (not JUST MS') to throw-in with WebKit (and possibly help improve it along the way!), so that there IS a "monoculture" in this one particular case.
I don't know about you, but if I were a Web Developer I would WANT a "monoculture" when it comes to HTML STANDARDS-Interpretation and Rendering.
For example, how would the internet even exist if various TCP/IP stacks returned different "endian" (or different-length) values in certain "header" fields? Isn't that just a different version of the "My Browser doesn't implement that Tag the same way as your Browser (or doesn't render it at all)" bullshit that drives Web Devs. CA-RAY-ZEE???
Exactly. Lets not go back to that. Last thing we want is a webkit monoculture.
Excuse me; but if you are NOT being sarcastic, isn't the exact problem that makes web development such a PITA, even today, the fact that there are multiple HTML parsers? And didn't the rise of the OPEN SOURCE WebKit at least reduce that to a dull roar (at least until Google had to throw their weight around with their express desire to unseat WebKit)?
So, I see this as yet another attempt by Microsoft to cause developers to have to code exceptions for multiple browsers, and knowing MS' still-largest marketshare, they are setting up another "Code for Spartan" situation like they enjoyed with IE 6.
While the rest of their goals SOUND laudable, MS shows that they are talking out both sides of their ass with their newest attempt to fork us, and web development... Yet again.
OK then, then lets use another term: Apple is patent system abuser, a patent bully,
...and Samsung is...?
Let us say that if your patent suit has the sole purpose of stopping legitimate competition in spite of the fact you are using patents in a trollish manner, and are being a patent troll. If you offer no services or products then all you are is a patent troll.
And so, how does that apply to Apple as a PLAINTIFF?
To be fair though Apple was doing it because Samsung was succeeding in the marketplace.
Not because a black squarish phone that you use fingers on the screen was something no one else could think of.
But isn't it funny that no one else did, until...?
Appealing to wikipedia for authority on a community-defined term? -1
It just happened to have the most complete definition, so STFU, COWARD.
I don't give a flying fuck whether Apple are making a product or not. They're attempting to use patents that should never have been granted to prevent other companies from making products, and that is patent trolling.
Sorry, no it isn't.
For the reading impaired like you, here is a good definition of "Patent Trolling".
Apple have been using a patent troll company (Rockstar) to go after Samsung and other companies
Apple is FAR from the only holder of the Rockstar Patents (Nortel Patents).
And I don't think they have relied on those to sue Samsung for most of what they have sued over.
And what about Samsung? They have filed retaliatory Patent suits against Apple, and they aren't a member of Rockstar.
Haters gotta hate.
Sorry but abusive litigation based on facile patents is abusive litigation. Doesn't matter whether it's done to or by Apple, the patents are still complete bullshit and their use for extortion is abuse and needs to be derided.
Still not Patent TROLLING, sorry.
So lets see if I read this correctly. Not counting the company Apple has do their dirty work in the world of patent trolling......
And at any rate, nobody is claiming Apple doing this on products they are developing/releasing. It's stuff like slide to unlock, where products were on the market 5 years prior, using exactly what Apple patented, yet somehow that little fact wasn't considered important in granting or defending against said patent.
How is that Patent TROLLING?
Maybe a bullshit decision; but Apple wasn't TROLLING with that.
I don't think "Patent Trolling" means what you think it means.
If Apple actually invented this technology they would have a prior use defence and would not have been found to infringe.
Anywhere but in East Texas, that is...
Apple "invented".
Give me a break. Apple was worse than MS when it came to the internet, CyberDog? Comical.
Interesting language, since the name for CyberDog came from a Comic in The New Yorker.
And you have to remember when CyberDog was released, it was a pretty cool and ambitious project. In fact, if it hadn't been for Microsoft throwing their weight around in the OpenDoc Consortium (and the fact that CyberDog was burning cash at a time when Apple couldn't afford it), CyberDog (and OpenDoc) probably would have evolved into a Web Standard.
Remember Apple and Carl Sagan? When Carl Sagan had a problem with abuse of his name in a product Apple, in protest at the silliness of the "IP laws" used the internal name insulting him and made a sound like "Sosume".
1. Carl Sagan was an INTERNAL Project CODE NAME for the PowerMac 7100. The whole lawsuit thing was beneath the personage of Dr. Sagan, but he DID sue (twice!) and lost (twice!).
2. Sosumi's name had NOTHING to do with Carl Sagan, or ANY filed lawsuit. THIS is the REAL STORY.
3. The Sound "Sosumi" did NOT sound like "So sue me". It sounded like THIS.
4. It is "Sosumi" NOT "Sosume".
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.
