It’s a disappointing day when you find a single serving site that generates the comprehensive syntax for the border-radius property, aptly named border-radius.com. Because not all browsers (and browser versions) support the latest and greatest things CSS3 can do, one has to resort to browser targeting yet again. Only this time, one browser’s syntax is different from another browser’s, and becomes a chore to write CSS for each.
There’s a pretty obvious explanation for the existence of browser-specific properties from SitePoint:
Vendors—browser makers—are free to implement extensions to the CSS specifications that, in most cases, are proprietary to their browser. They may do this for a number of reasons, such as adding new features for users, or for experiments and debugging. Most often, though, the extensions are used to release and test browser features that have been developed in the preparation of W3C drafts that have not yet reached Candidate Recommendation status—the extensions allow these new properties to be widely tested before they become available as standard CSS properties.
So for starters, the browser-specific CSS has prefixes like:
-moz: Gecko-based browsers like Firefox-webkit: WebKit-based browsers like Safari and Chrome-ms: Internet Explorer-o: Opera-khtml: Konqueror
(The complete table is listed at the W3C.) That’s fine, but what I don’t get is why the syntax following the prefix isn’t always the same as the standard CSS syntax. The border-radius property is just one example, which is peanuts compared to the gradients syntax. Compare:
-webkit-gradient(
linear,
left bottom,
left top,
color-stop(0, rgb(0,10,148)),
color-stop(1, rgb(45,58,246))
)
-moz-linear-gradient(
center bottom,
rgb(0,10,148) 0%,
rgb(45,58,246) 100%
)
Sure, we can turn to generators like WestCiv’s and Damien Galarza’s—and we’ll probably be increasingly dependent on them in the future as CSS capabilities and their corresponding syntaxes grow more complex. But why must browser vendors insist on that when it only multiplies the code and maintenance necessary? Does it have to do with the way their engines parse the code, or something less significant?
Everything old seems to be new (and hip?) again. And I’m not too sure I’m happy about it.
Short URLs
Shorter URLs are all the rage these days because of Twitter and its 140-character limit. If you’re one of the top sites on the web is practically mandatory for you to roll out your own URL shortening system. Ars Technica, for example, whose official URL is arstechnica.com, also has arst.ch. If you’re on a CMS like WordPress, you’re advised to give out the post ID permalink instead of the keyword-rich permalink of your blog post for the same reason.
Not too long ago, SEO and usability experts were on the same side and recommended readable URLs. Now that Twitter is the new internet marketing (I think they call it social media now) battlefield, the rules changed. When the next killer Web 3.0 app comes out, will we compromise and adjust once again?
But then again, has the Web ever stood still? Maybe I just thought it was beginning to.
WebKit’s CSS animations and scrollbars
You can now style scrollbars and perform animations using CSS in WebKit browsers.
I remember when Internet Explorer started to support scrollbar styling and almost every personal site took advantage of it. But then they grew out of it and were told by the gurus not to mess with the browser chrome.
I also remember <blink> and <marquee>.
But then again, “styling scrollbars isn’t messing with the chrome anymore than styling a button is.” Would the world be a saner place if browsers behaved the same way and all looked alike?
DiggBars
Digg has come out with its own version of the external page framing mechanism which they call the DiggBar.
Said mechanism is nothing new, and never really died out even to be considered a comeback, but Digg has a powerful following by all that which is noisy in the blogosphere to build a considerable amount of buzz. And no matter how you look at it, framing external pages is still framing, reminiscent of the era when HTML framesets were considered cool.
But then again, perhaps in this new era listening to the clamor of the crowd is no longer a fluke, but a very real way to improve one’s business.
In a recent developer conference in Sydney, someone asked Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer why they’re spending so many resources on their beloved browser, Internet Explorer:
Why is IE still relevant and why is it worth spending money on rendering engines when there are open source ones available that can respond to changes in Web standards faster?
According to Techworld, this was his reply:
Ballmer began his answer philosophically, saying Microsoft will need to look at what the browser is like in the future and, if there is no innovation around them, which he thinks is “likely”, Microsoft may still need its own browser because of proprietary extensions that broaden its functionality.
“Open source is interesting,” he said. “Apple has embraced Webkit and we may look at that, but we will continue to build extensions for IE 8.”
So now if we can imagine Microsoft actually swallowing its pride to rework IE to use the same code Apple is using with Safari, and Google with Chrome, we’d have 3 competing browsers by 3 technological giants using the same foundations for building a browser. It would seem like good news for those who’ve spent sleepless nights keeping websites from breaking due to IE’s numerous bugs, although I’m not quite sure why have to have 3 different derivatives of WebKit in the first place—which is an issue for another day.
I want to go back to the question of relevance. Ballmer didn’t exactly defend IE’s relevance, even saying that there is likely to be “no innovation around them”. Are you sure? Mozilla definitely thinks otherwise. So does Google.
Add to that Microsoft’s foray into the “cloud” with Windows Azure. Google, which wanted to make sure its web apps provided the best experience, created its own web browser. IE has been around for years now, but what could be crucial to next-generation platform computing seems to be an afterthought, or is just playing catch-up.
If we were to actually take Ballmer’s words to heart, we can expect that either way, web browsing should improve for the better: either through a Webkit-based IE, or the death of IE.
It may very well be the latter, if we’re to believe this comment on the article at the AppleInsider forums:
The IE team was dismantled except for a core team called IE SE – which translates to “IE Sustained Engineering”. What this means… is a product is dead and the SE team simply puts out hot-fixes for any pertinent issues. This all happened during that great legal battle that Microsoft had with the States.
I know we can accomplish a lot more by not waiting around for IE (and Microsoft) to get its act together, but here’s yet another reason web designers and developers are in a rut.
If the company behind Internet Explorer does not believe in it, why should we?
Philipp Lensen of Google Blogoscope shares a comic about Google’s open source web browser called Chrome. TechCrunch has posted leaked screenshots too. I suggest you read all those links as they explain very nicely the many, many features Google Chrome has, then try it out for yourself.
With all the revolutionary new features planned for this web browser, do the rest of the factions of the more-than-a-decade-long Browser Wars stand a chance? Let me run through several points that may or may not convince you that the ‘Wars are over:
Reworking web browser concepts
“Chrome”. Google Chrome is so named because the developers wanted to weed out all the unnecessary interface elements that get in the way of an optimal user experience. Google is pretty good at this—see Gmail.
Omnibox. I’ve complained about this before. We have too many blank bars in our browsers, why not stick to just one? Combining the ambitiousness of Firefox 3’s “AwesomeBar”, search keyword shortcuts, and Google’s mighty search engine, users might not need any other button in the toolbar.
Independent tabs and sandboxing. Chrome runs tabs as separate processes to isolate any unruly behavior, whether it’s a memory leak or malicious code.
Using Google’s assets
Webpage testing. Google will use its large—an understatement—collection of crawled websites to test if their browser is working properly on them. It will prioritize by popularity to be efficient in testing the millions, billions, and trillions of pages, of course.
Search and anti-phishing. I’ve mentioned the Omnibox. Google will incorporate its search into the singular browser bar to make finding websites a breeze. (I think AwesomeBar sounds better though.) And since Google is a pretty good keeper of blacklisted sites, Chrome also detects when a website is potentially harmful.
Google Gears. Another obvious move. Google Gears was created to make web browsing more responsive and efficient by linking together the online and offline, so it’s mandatory for Chrome to incorporate this feature.
Inspired by the best of other worlds
WebKit. WebKit is possibly the fastest and smartest browser rendering engine out there. It powers Safari and several Mac OS X applications, as well as Google Android and now Google Chrome.
Privacy Mode. Microsoft is set to introduce a history-free, cookie-free browsing feature in Internet Explorer 8 called InPrivate (though everyone else calls it “porn mode”). Now Google follows suit with “incognito browsing”.
Better JavaScript performance. Mozilla recently announced it was able to dramatically improve JavaScript loading by up to 37.5 times, a feature coming to Firefox 3.1. (Another comparable feature to Firefox is the previously-mentioned Omnibox.)
Speed Dial. Opera has sported this feature since version 9.2.
On to the questions…
Why? My answer? Because they can. Google’s answer? Watch it here. Google is the epitome of a Web 2.0 company, having revolutionized search, then e-mail, then every other activity that can be done online. It rehashed old elements of the Internet, and doing so on a browser feels like a natural extension of their work.
Does Google Chrome comply with Web Standards? Since Chrome is going to run on WebKit, can we trust that we won’t have to debug for yet another browser? Unfortunately, it failed the ACID3 test (which, on the other hand, Safari passed in version 3.2.1).
Will Google end its “search bar relationship” with Firefox and other browsers? Now that Google has its own browser, does it still need to push for the search bar feature in browsers like Firefox, IE, and Safari? Probably not. But most users will still use Google—the search engine—one way or the other. And if you’ve watched the video linked above, Sergey Brin says the general goal is to get people to use “alternative” browsers such as Firefox. (Of course, assuming that Firefox and Chrome remain minor players in the game.)
Is this a milestone in web browser history? Put another way, is this the best thing since tabbed browsing? I can’t really answer a resounding yes. Web browsers must pay attention to detail and reduce bloat—it’s a difficult balance. Google Chrome is a lean browser that contains only a few notable features. We’ll have to wait for a few more releases to see where they’re going with this.
Do you trust Google to browse in its browser? Between a proof-of-concept security flaw discovered hours after the browser’s release and a questionable (but recently modified) license agreement, are you confident in using yet another Google product? This is perhaps the biggest question of all.
