Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:No, we don't. (Score 1) 132

There is a problem with Webkit: prefixes were supposed to be for experimentation only, but Apple has always promoted Webkit-prefixed properties as being suitable for use on production sites.

Also, we've figured out that prefixes are useless for what they were designed for (enabling standards to evolve without having to be compatible with early experimental versions). Authors like to "future proof" their sites by writing CSS like "foo { -webkit-blah:pong; blah:pong; }", which means the standardized "blah" is almost as constrained by existing content as it would have been had it never been prefixed. That's why Chrome and Firefox don't prefix any new stuff any more. Instead we keep it behind flags so it's never available to all users until standardized.

Unfortunately Apple doesn't like that message and continues to implement prefixed stuff and promote its use.

Comment Re:The list of prefixed properties (Score 1) 132

Webkit didn't do exactly what they were "supposed to do":

Prefixes were intended to be used for experimental features, eventually to be removed in favor of standardized versions. But Apple has always promoted Webkit-prefixed features as permanently supported features of Safari that developers should use in production sites. (You could argue that's Apple doing that, not Webkit, but most Webkit staff, especially in those days, worked for Apple.)

Vendors implementing prefixed features were supposed to be on the hook for getting those features standardized. Webkit people hardly did any of that; IIRC they produced a couple of half-baked specs for transitions, animations and transforms, and other vendors had to do most of the work to make those real specs. Many other prefixed features they have made no attempt to standardize at all. This is partly because for a very long time now Apple has declined to pay even one person to work full time on Web standards.

Comment Re:Safari really is the new IE (Score 1) 132

The Webkit team is quite awesome, it's just that there's far too few of them.

Which makes some sense if you're Tim Cook. You want people writing iOS apps in the walled garden instead of cross-platform Web content, and for now you can expect they will, especially if that Web content doesn't work well in Safari.

But at some point, in some markets, that strategy may break down.

Comment Re:Coulomb Barrier (Score 1) 344

Obviously the Coulomb barrier is still relevant, but the parent's claim that the Coulomb barrier alone makes cold fusion impossible is bunk. If muons could be produced more easily, or if the probability of them sticking to emitted alpha particles was lower, muon-catalyzed fusion would actually be a legitimate cold-fusion power source.

I'm not sure why you're keen to defend an invalid argument, especially when valid ones are available.

Comment Re:What is with these space law professors? (Score 1) 218

Ram Jakhu says that the purpose of the Outer Space Treaty is that "there shouldn't be private property in space". So he's claiming a treaty signed at the height of the Cold War established communism in outer space in perpetuity. Hmm.

Even if he's right, which I very strongly doubt, it's a terrible idea. Communism hasn't worked on Earth and is no more likely to work off-Earth.

The environmental arguments are even worse: they assume all human modification of the environment is inherently wrong. That makes sense to the anti-human wing of environmentalism, which is strong in academia, but not to people who value human flourishing more than hypothetical exo-bacteria (i.e. almost everyone).

Slashdot Top Deals

"It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa