Considering Webkit is software, and HTML5 is, in practice, a collection of languages.. i would say you're wrong.
Let's imagine that WebKit was the only rendering engine out there why would you have a problem with it since it can be updated, changed or forked by anyone at any time (read the article). This not the same issue we had with Trident.
PS: If you want to make your own webcode to compete with HTML you are more than welcome to do so.
Let's imagine that WebKit was the only rendering engine out there why would you have a problem with it since it can be updated, changed or forked by anyone at any time (read the article). This not the same issue we had with Trident.
PS: If you want to make your own webcode to compete with HTML you are more than welcome to do so.
you would have a problem because it has no competition, no competition leads to lack of innovation. Don't think for a second that just because something is Open Source that it's going to be innovative.. just look at open office!
Seriously, part of your job is cross browser testing. This is a great thing to drive innovation in the space we work. A monopoly stifles inovation and webkit was drawing close to that.
Very keen to see what google does with Blink and what features it brings to desktop and mobile (both iOS and Android)
How the **** is webkit a "monopoly"? That's like saying, HTML/CSS is a monopoly, and should also have competition with other languages, as that will "drive innovation",- you can apply this to other standards that have made technology more interoperable, compatible, stable, and easier to develop for. There are some technologies on the backend that EVERYONE benefits from while being standardized, especially consumers. Your analogy holds absolutely no water, webkit is not stifling anything. If Google wanted to improve it, they can easily contribute to it instead of forking it into something else. How exactly does anyone benefit from having websites that are rendered differently on different browsers, or when developers have to make time consuming customizations for every rendering engine out there? Consumers shouldn't have to CARE what browser they're using, its not something they should need to worry about, and we were nearing that point. If Apple did this people would be screaming bloody mary, but because it's Google, people like you justify it under the guide of "innovation", when in reality this has nothing to do with benefitting consumers, and everything to do with some alternate agenda they have.
How the **** is webkit a "monopoly"? That's like saying, HTML/CSS is a monopoly, and should also have competition with other languages, as that will "drive innovation",- you can apply this to other standards that have made technology more interoperable, compatible, stable, and easier to develop for. There are some technologies on the backend that EVERYONE benefits from while being standardized, especially consumers. Your analogy holds absolutely no water, webkit is not stifling anything. If Google wanted to improve it, they can easily contribute to it instead of forking it into something else. How exactly does anyone benefit from having websites that are rendered differently on different browsers, or when developers have to make time consuming customizations for every rendering engine out there? Consumers shouldn't have to CARE what browser they're using, its not something they should need to worry about, and we were nearing that point. If Apple did this people would be screaming bloody mary, but because it's Google, people like you justify it under the guide of "innovation", when in reality this has nothing to do with benefitting consumers, and everything to do with some alternate agenda they have.
Here's a thought, go back and read what i wrote again - "A monopoly stifles inovation and webkit was drawing close to that"
Never said it was...
also, FYI; A monopoly (from Greekmonos ????? (alone or single) + polein ?????? (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity
So technically, yes, HTML and CSS have a monopoly.
Here's a thought, go back and read what i wrote again - "A monopoly stifles inovation and webkit was drawing close to that"
Never said it was...
also, FYI; A monopoly (from Greekmonos ????? (alone or single) + polein ?????? (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity
So technically, yes, HTML and CSS have a monopoly.
So? Monopolies aren't always bad.
A webkit monopoly would be nice, because little do you know, testing, hacking, twisting, and working between rendering engines is terrible. Also, no competition does not mean no innovation. While competition can be a major component of innovation, they're fundamentally different. Without competitors HTML and CSS were able to create some great things with recent evolutions.
Also, don't forget that webkit is opened source, so as people begin evolving parts of it for their needs, they can be merged back into the core evolving it for the whole. Trident, which was close sourced, only evolved as a single entitysaw fit.
Thanks for the link to the Blink info. Your subtle hint to read before commenting is taken. hahaha. It was very informative, and feels like WebKit will benefit from the work that Blink does. There can be a sharing of advances in both directions. Blink gives the Google engineers the freedom to make major changes. But my concern about WebKit's base of developers suddenly being halved in size is worrying still.
Google, again, making moves that are not in the best interest of consumers of developers. Now web developers have to test for yet another rendering engine, just when things were starting to get standardized under webkit. Pretty ridiculous, and frankly, disgusting.
Rubbish. It will be far better for consumers and the web in general. It will be more work for developers but if they stick to standards it won't be bad. With this move the good outweighs the bad like Adele outweighs Taylor Swift.
I am just grateful to never visit a site anymore that says "Internet Explorer is required to view this site". Usually because of their use of Active X or something like that only available on Windows. As long as us Mac folks can continue to surf without being penalized as years ago I am all for speed and diversity of choice.
BECU, in Seattle, says you have to have IE to view your mortgage information. Can you believe that?
If you complain, they give you a workaround so that you can use other browsers.
Google, again, making moves that are not in the best interest of consumers of developers. Now web developers have to test for yet another rendering engine, just when things were starting to get standardized under webkit. Pretty ridiculous, and frankly, disgusting.
Here's a thought, go back and read what i wrote again - "A monopoly stifles inovation and webkit was drawing close to that"
Never said it was...
also, FYI; A monopoly (from Greekmonos ????? (alone or single) + polein ?????? (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity
So technically, yes, HTML and CSS have a monopoly.
I like this guy.
In five posts he's insulted, not only three regular contributing posters on this forum, but a shitload of web developers.
And, yet, you weren't able to refute anything he said.
His main premise is that the web was finally settling down into good interoperability where sites could be counted on to work on all browsers. Splitting Webkit endangers that position - and could conceivably take us back to the days when you needed to use several different browsers because so many sites only worked on one browser.
Can someone with relevant expertise in this field comment on Google's decision to fork WebKit?
Since Google and Apple are competitors in this space, my knee-jerk reaction is to suspect that this is some kind of power play against Apple. However, there could be a legitimate reason, from a technical standpoint, that I don't know of.
Rubbish. It will be far better for consumers and the web in general. It will be more work for developers but if they stick to standards it won't be bad. With this move the good outweighs the bad like Adele outweighs Taylor Swift.
-kpluck
The point which you keep ignoring is that currently, there is (effectively) a single set of standards that developers needs to follow. Forking Webkit creates the risk that there will be multiple sets of standards which adds complexity.
Given how badly Android is fragmented and all the problems caused by that fragmentation, it is quite reasonable for someone to not want the same thing to happen to html.
Comments
Let's imagine that WebKit was the only rendering engine out there why would you have a problem with it since it can be updated, changed or forked by anyone at any time (read the article). This not the same issue we had with Trident.
PS: If you want to make your own webcode to compete with HTML you are more than welcome to do so.
Will Google make Blink open source too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Let's imagine that WebKit was the only rendering engine out there why would you have a problem with it since it can be updated, changed or forked by anyone at any time (read the article). This not the same issue we had with Trident.
PS: If you want to make your own webcode to compete with HTML you are more than welcome to do so.
you would have a problem because it has no competition, no competition leads to lack of innovation. Don't think for a second that just because something is Open Source that it's going to be innovative.. just look at open office!
As a web developer, I can say, without a doubt: FML.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamieLeSouef
To all you 'apparent' web devs; suck it up!
Seriously, part of your job is cross browser testing. This is a great thing to drive innovation in the space we work. A monopoly stifles inovation and webkit was drawing close to that.
Very keen to see what google does with Blink and what features it brings to desktop and mobile (both iOS and Android)
How the **** is webkit a "monopoly"? That's like saying, HTML/CSS is a monopoly, and should also have competition with other languages, as that will "drive innovation",- you can apply this to other standards that have made technology more interoperable, compatible, stable, and easier to develop for. There are some technologies on the backend that EVERYONE benefits from while being standardized, especially consumers. Your analogy holds absolutely no water, webkit is not stifling anything. If Google wanted to improve it, they can easily contribute to it instead of forking it into something else. How exactly does anyone benefit from having websites that are rendered differently on different browsers, or when developers have to make time consuming customizations for every rendering engine out there? Consumers shouldn't have to CARE what browser they're using, its not something they should need to worry about, and we were nearing that point. If Apple did this people would be screaming bloody mary, but because it's Google, people like you justify it under the guide of "innovation", when in reality this has nothing to do with benefitting consumers, and everything to do with some alternate agenda they have.
Actually you're wrong. Any real web developer would know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
Actually you're wrong. Any real web developer would know that.
oooooo.. burn!
but read what i said, 'in practice' it is
and still, the point is, you can bitch and moan all you want.. Google, Apple, Opera, Microsoft are not here to make your life easier. Suck it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
How the **** is webkit a "monopoly"? That's like saying, HTML/CSS is a monopoly, and should also have competition with other languages, as that will "drive innovation",- you can apply this to other standards that have made technology more interoperable, compatible, stable, and easier to develop for. There are some technologies on the backend that EVERYONE benefits from while being standardized, especially consumers. Your analogy holds absolutely no water, webkit is not stifling anything. If Google wanted to improve it, they can easily contribute to it instead of forking it into something else. How exactly does anyone benefit from having websites that are rendered differently on different browsers, or when developers have to make time consuming customizations for every rendering engine out there? Consumers shouldn't have to CARE what browser they're using, its not something they should need to worry about, and we were nearing that point. If Apple did this people would be screaming bloody mary, but because it's Google, people like you justify it under the guide of "innovation", when in reality this has nothing to do with benefitting consumers, and everything to do with some alternate agenda they have.
Here's a thought, go back and read what i wrote again - "A monopoly stifles inovation and webkit was drawing close to that"
Never said it was...
also, FYI; A monopoly (from Greek monos ????? (alone or single) + polein ?????? (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity
So technically, yes, HTML and CSS have a monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamieLeSouef
Here's a thought, go back and read what i wrote again - "A monopoly stifles inovation and webkit was drawing close to that"
Never said it was...
also, FYI; A monopoly (from Greek monos ????? (alone or single) + polein ?????? (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity
So technically, yes, HTML and CSS have a monopoly.
So? Monopolies aren't always bad.
A webkit monopoly would be nice, because little do you know, testing, hacking, twisting, and working between rendering engines is terrible. Also, no competition does not mean no innovation. While competition can be a major component of innovation, they're fundamentally different. Without competitors HTML and CSS were able to create some great things with recent evolutions.
Also, don't forget that webkit is opened source, so as people begin evolving parts of it for their needs, they can be merged back into the core evolving it for the whole. Trident, which was close sourced, only evolved as a single entity saw fit.
Thanks for the link to the Blink info. Your subtle hint to read before commenting is taken. hahaha. It was very informative, and feels like WebKit will benefit from the work that Blink does. There can be a sharing of advances in both directions. Blink gives the Google engineers the freedom to make major changes. But my concern about WebKit's base of developers suddenly being halved in size is worrying still.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Google, again, making moves that are not in the best interest of consumers of developers. Now web developers have to test for yet another rendering engine, just when things were starting to get standardized under webkit. Pretty ridiculous, and frankly, disgusting.
Rubbish. It will be far better for consumers and the web in general. It will be more work for developers but if they stick to standards it won't be bad. With this move the good outweighs the bad like Adele outweighs Taylor Swift.
-kpluck
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
I am just grateful to never visit a site anymore that says "Internet Explorer is required to view this site". Usually because of their use of Active X or something like that only available on Windows. As long as us Mac folks can continue to surf without being penalized as years ago I am all for speed and diversity of choice.
BECU, in Seattle, says you have to have IE to view your mortgage information. Can you believe that?
If you complain, they give you a workaround so that you can use other browsers.
It's BS and extremely lame.
You, again, rant without understanding the issue.
Pretty ridiculous, and frankly, disgusting.
Nope. It is Google wanting more direct control of the technologies that are important to them. Nothing else.
It is a smart move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamieLeSouef
Here's a thought, go back and read what i wrote again - "A monopoly stifles inovation and webkit was drawing close to that"
Never said it was...
also, FYI; A monopoly (from Greek monos ????? (alone or single) + polein ?????? (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity
So technically, yes, HTML and CSS have a monopoly.
I like this guy.
In five posts he's insulted, not only three regular contributing posters on this forum, but a shitload of web developers.
/S
And, yet, you weren't able to refute anything he said.
His main premise is that the web was finally settling down into good interoperability where sites could be counted on to work on all browsers. Splitting Webkit endangers that position - and could conceivably take us back to the days when you needed to use several different browsers because so many sites only worked on one browser.
So exactly what is wrong with his statement?
Can someone with relevant expertise in this field comment on Google's decision to fork WebKit?
Since Google and Apple are competitors in this space, my knee-jerk reaction is to suspect that this is some kind of power play against Apple. However, there could be a legitimate reason, from a technical standpoint, that I don't know of.
Anyone care to share?
The point which you keep ignoring is that currently, there is (effectively) a single set of standards that developers needs to follow. Forking Webkit creates the risk that there will be multiple sets of standards which adds complexity.
Given how badly Android is fragmented and all the problems caused by that fragmentation, it is quite reasonable for someone to not want the same thing to happen to html.