Slashdot Mirror
Opera 9.5 To Fully Support CSS?
Albert Sandberg writes "According to a developer blog, it looks like Opera 9.5 (which has been code-named Kestrel) will be the first browser to fully support the CSS selector test (test is here). Finally! Weekly builds should start being available in a few weeks."
Really, the Opera web browser has allowed me to do great things throughout the internet, with hundreds of tabs open, and consequently more bookmarking being done, and session management, I do not know how productive I would be with Firefox alone. Commonly, when stranded on Firefox-only systems, I am burdened with odd tab loading impairments and generally limited to acting like I am doing literally one thing and one thing only-- no queuing up content or strands of thought, etc. Even with the hierarchical vertical tabbing enhancements through the TBE extension akin to iRider, my productivity seems to drop. So, I am glad to see more (good) publicity for Opera.
...Do I use a fully compliant browser in which half the pages out there won't display properly because they've been coded by lazy, clueless hacks with MCSE...or do I use the shit that is Internet Explorer because almost all pages will display semi-properly, even though the code - and IE - is totally fucked up?
I use Opera exclusively, and I know that one day everybody will create compliant webpages. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sigh...
Despite Opera showing its superiority as a browser over and over again and on multiple platforms, from desktop to mobile to game systems, ther eis still no Slashdot Icon to mark Opera news stories.
When will web authors get a clue, and start coding to standards and not implementations. (fuck it if IE breaks because they don't do things correctly)? A properly written web site should never need to do a browser check.
I'm sorry, but you don't say "fuck it" to 80%+ of your visitors. I believe you meant to say "A properly written web site should do a browser check, and assume that any non-IE browser is standards compliant". Oh yeah and "We know it doesn't work with this old version, please upgrade" is also fine IMO as long as it's a known broken version. Basicly it boils down to a positive or negative look on the unknown: "We don't know your browser, so we assume it's ok" as opposed to "We don't know your browser, so you must change to one we know".
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Gecko tries to walk a razor-thin line of supporting standards (which are essentially defined in a vacuum) and working with the web as it actually exists.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
But every incremental Firefox upgrade or a plugin tweak making it to the front page is Stuff that Matters?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
There is no browser out there that is 100% compliant with all the standards that describe web content.
One of the primary goals behind Firefox/Gecko is standards compliance and, as far as I know, Firefox is the most compliant browser out there, categorically speaking. The problem is that there are several standards (and several versions of each standard) and each standard is large enough that they have to be implemented piecemeal. Each browser team prioritizes what they think are the most important elements of each standard and implement them accordingly (presumably also implementing the easier elements as opportunity allows even if they're not important). Since each dev team has slightly different priorities (and each architecture has its own set of low hanging elements), a browser that is mostly compliant might not implement standard elements that a less compliant browser has.
If each dev team continues to work on standards compliance, eventually all browsers will be 100% compliant (that assumes that standards are not released faster than dev teams can catch up...sadly, this is not what history predicts). Realistically, some teams will never implement edge cases unless a big public relations fuss is made (like Acid 2 compliance).
So take heart that your beloved Firefox is doing better than most other browsers out there. However, make as much fuss about it as you can so that the dev teams stay focused.
*sigh* back to work...
Yes, because kneejerk reactionaries of the sort trolling through this thread would be off in their little corner of the web and the rest of us sane people would be able to talk civilly. Telling the majority of your users (including, for example, poor people who don't own a computer and use whatever is installed on the computer in the public library) to fuck off is like a shoe store refusing to sell shoes to anyone with uncool socks. Much better to sell someone a nice pair of shoes, and say, "By the way, you could try these really nice socks to go with them. The don't have holes in them like the ones you're wearing."
.sig withheld by request
umm excuse me, but i give a fuck about lynx. and I'm not a longbearded linux geek either.. I just happen to like browsing websites with a text-only browser once in a while. mainly when i am using a slow ass dial-up connection to connect to my linux server over ssh. in those cases, its faster to load the pages up in lynx than it is to wait for either opera or firefox to display them. when pages work decently in lynx, i can appreciate it.
You don't have any "software freedoms" that anyone needs to respect. Some developers just let you mess around in their code. Labeling it a "freedom" with all the connotations that word has is just a cheap marketing ploy.
Don't fool yourself into delusions of entitlement just because a group of people with unrealistic ideologies want to force theirs onto others by appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Often, this is because a certain art is required to figure out an effective set of keywords to get decent results (I frequently have to try three or four different keyword combinations and orders to get good results), but even for CSS, as per your example, it's not necessarily helpful for those "not in the know."
Your link, w3schools, is great for someone who already knows something about graphics design, or at least knows what it is. It wouldn't be helpful at all to, say, my gamer cousin who spends most of his time on BF2 and WoW, or my grandmother who only uses the Internet to stay in contact with family members across the country.
If you were to argue that w3schools isn't intended for them, then you're necessarily demonstrating my point that googling for something, e.g. "CSS", isn't necessarily going to help someone who doesn't already know what it is.
Your best link for that search, BTW, is the Wikipedia entry four links down, and that's only because Wikipedia is specifically written for laymen. If PageRank had put the Wikipedia entry two or three positions farther down, then there wouldn't have been any results for the layperson on the first page of results.
Typically, the best answer to the lay question, (e.g. "What's that?") isn't a Google search, it's a custom response by someone who knows about it. And if you're not willing to write that response, don't waste time--both yours and the questioner's--telling them to Google it. It's not your responsibility to make sure they don't ask that type of question; Your responses alone won't prevent that.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Passing a single test suite isn't exactly the same thing as supporting the whole standard perfectly. Test suites, by their very nature, only test select subsets of the standard. A single general test suite cannot expose every possible bug in every feature. On top of that, this test suite only covers the selectors, which is a fairly simple and straight-forward part of the spec. Heck, even Internet Explorer supports a bunch of CSS 3 selectors. It's one thing to claim full support for selectors; it's quite different to claim that pseudo-elements with table display values in nested floats with negative margins always work correctly. It's great to see progress, and Firefox and Opera are both impressively close to full support for the current CSS 2.1 specification, but let's not exaggerate the situation. They both still have a lot of work to do (as does Safari, which was clearly behind overall in version 2.x and is likely still a bit so in version 3).