I'm glad they didn't implement those form elements, because once they implement a part of a standard, their implementation becomes the rule. If they implemented HTML5 form elements now, that essentially means marking the current HTML5 draft as finalized. I don't think that would be good for HTML5.
PNG is also about 14 or 15 years old, but IE still cannot handle its color correction chunks (gAMA, iCCP) properly:
http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/png-gammatest.html
Only firefox renders that page correctly. All the other browsers fail in some way. Chrome doesn't even support color profiles at all.
IE9 's platform preview supposedly has full support for gamma, and v2 and v4 color profiles, but it has issues rendering that page. I'll report that page in their bugtracking system, so IE9 has fully accurate color rendering by release time.
Your problem is not that it is bad. Netscape 4 was just as bad. Your problem is that it is still widely used.
No, netscape 4 was much, much worse. IE6 was to Netscape 4 what Chrome is to IE6.
And all of that for what? Pretty graphics (Aero) that will be turned off right after Autorun?
If they're pretty, why do you turn them off? They run on the graphics hardware, so they don't affect the performance of your apps.
Why is it that a linux system isn't configured well if it doesn't run compiz, but at the same time aero on windows is a bloated monstrosity that needs disabling?
Anyway, the main reason to run windows 7 is responsiveness. XP regularly blocks if you're multi-tasking, because it has lousy CPU scheduling and no IO scheduling. Windows 7 remains responsive in almost all situations (at least in my personal experience).
IE8 does not have an IE6 compatibility mode. It can only emulate IE7.
This isn't limited to IE though. Mac Office has vast incompatibilities with the windows version (most notably a lack of support for macro's, which they'll rectify in the next release).
It's because the mac team at microsoft is completely separate from everyone else.
So any web site which uses Javascript is open to compromise and therefore could become a mal-Javascript distributor.
XSS leverages javascript, sure, but there are many ways of breaking a site's security without using javascript. Javascript itself is not a security problem, since it runs in a sandbox. Security problems, even those manifested through javascript, are always caused by bad design on the back-end (not filtering user input correctly).
The overemphasis on how fast Javascript runs seems to be due to a lack of serious thought as to how to make browsers better at doing what they were designed to do -- which was *not* to run "web-apps". We used the Internet very successfully for over a decade to provide information -- not to run apps -- if it wasn't (isn't) broken why the emphasis on fixing(?) it?
Just like the purpose of land-line communication has changed from voice calls to data, so is the purpose of browsers changing from document viewing to applications. The browser as a rich app platform is a good thing. It takes a lot of worry away from end users (upgrading, security, installation,
I note this with an aside that the U.S. Government (NIH NCBI) no longer allows complete access to its *public* databases, e.g. PubMed, by browsers which do not have Javascript enabled. (One is compelled to ask *who* for the most part paid for that information but can no longer access it?).
Javascript is as essential to a modern browser as HTML and CSS. Disabling javascript has no point anymore (ever since accessibility products learned to cope with ajax). If you're talking about using tools like curl to extract content, then I agree that ways have to be provided to easily obtain all the content from a site. That doesn't mean that these sites should cater to the lowest common denominator and give everyone a shitty experience to allow a corner case. It just means they need to implement the corner case as a separate solution. Ever used a web app without any javascript? It's always a lousy experience. I don't see why that should be foisted on all users.
The memory use was either misinterpretation of statistics (happens often), or plugins. Firefox itself doesn't have a memory problem, but its plugins and add-ons do have major memory and stability issues. A clean firefox install with a clean profile and no addons or plugins is almost invulnerable. You might argue that it's also near useless, but the reality is that the other browsers are just as vulnerable to plugin and addon issues.
Now that flash is running in a separate process (as of FF 3.6.4) we can finally see that it's the flash plugin that's taking up the majority of RAM (at least, that's what I see on my system).
Wow, it's almost as if when they ported it to Windows, they *actually* ported it to Windows instead of completely half-assing it!
Chrome was developed on windows first, and then ported to mac and linux.
Stopwatch measurements of page loads? Back in the day, that's how we did it (uphill in the snow).
You act like google and mozilla are competitors. They're not. There's nothing mozilla does that competes with google. Both are working towards a larger and more capable web, and google has bet the farm on that web becoming the de-facto application platform. Mozilla's activities are a benefit to google, not a risk.
In essence, google is getting a very cheap deal with mozilla, and they know it (which is why the contract has been extended twice so far, and will likely be so again in the second half of 2011).
Do they? They win if people visit Google properties. Whether that needs multiple high quality browsers is debatable. It probably does need _a_ high quality browser
Competing browsers advance the state of the web art faster than a single dominant player. Google entered the browser market not to win, but to increase competition. Mozilla has much the same goal (firefox is the reason microsoft restarted IE development). There's no denying that the competition in the browser space is fierce and that this is leading to rapid iterations of these browsers.
No, Glenn Beck is to entertainment what McDonalds is to nutrition.
That's nonsense. I was bullied heavily as a child, but I'm not insecure anymore. Every victim has the choice to overcome the lack of confidence that being victimized gave them. We should stop treating victims like victims. Send them to karate class! Make them talk to large audiences! Why do we correct only the behavior of the bully when the behavior of the victim is just as much at fault?
You might argue that webkit doesn't need HTML anymore either (except for the canvas tag). Canvas and javascript can render anything, like the bespin web-based code editor, which uses only canvas.
Canvas and SVG serve very different purposes.
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson
