Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Complains That WebKit Breaks Web Standards
Billly Gates writes "In a bizarre, yet funny and ironic move, Microsoft warned web developers that using WebKit stagnates open standards and innovation on the Web. According to the call to action in its Windows Phone Developer Blog, Microsoft is especially concerned about the mobile market, where many mobile sites only work with Android or iOS with WebKit-specific extensions. Their examples include W3C code such as radius-border, which is being written as -WebKit-radius-border instead on websites. In the mobile market WebKit has a 90% marketshare, while website masters feel it is not worth the development effort to test against browsers such as IE. Microsoft's solution to the problem of course is to use IE 10 for standard compliance and not use the proprietary (yet open source) WebKit."
WebKit is doing exactly what Microsoft accuses it of. They are developing their own extensions and putting them out as webkit- prefixed. Of course Microsoft shouldn't try to implement these non-standard extensions but use the standard ones. This is why I see nothing "funny" or "bizarre" about it, other than for the fact that WebKit is now doing exactly what everyone hated IE doing years ago.
You know this was an issue ten years ago when i was learning Perl and the hot new PHP 3...one might have hoped for a little progress in the interim.
Don't blame Android as a platform, it actually allows non-WebKit browsers.
Why don't they use webkit themselves? Then they can spend their time, money, and energy on putting their crappy microsoft experience on top of it?
Sorry... using logic again.
Because if there is one company that really stands up for standards, it's Microsoft.
In fact, sometimes they pay millions to get them through the ISO.
This is rich coming from Redmond, Microsoft is breaking web standards with IE 6, IE 7, IE 8, and IE 9.
Let them fix the beam in their own eye, before they start complaining about the speck in anothers.
When can we start seeing the "Best seen in Webkit" logos?
...wow. That is all I can say. "Wow."
Palm trees and 8
The real question is, how does IE10 still score so poorly on html5test.com...a sad 320 (+6 bonus) vs. Firefox's 372 (+10 bonus).
It seems insane to me that MS is still this far behind.
For some stuff this is no different than what Microsoft did with IE, but that doesn't mean this should be the appoach taken. Microsoft could also be less of a drag when it comes to embracing the web specifications.
The web specifications need to flow a little better and ease the rate of implementation. At the same time we should be discouraging the use of prefixed extensions and encourage the use of their non-prefixed equivalents, if they are part of that year's spécification.
As for the idea of simply using WebKit, it is one approach, but at the same time it is nice to see the diversity of implentations to keep people competitive.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that a summary written by "Billy Gates" would be this slanted... I read the MS blog and I didn't see anything that ruffled my feathers. Don't get me wrong, I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the IE6 days, but all the blog post is doing is saying is "don't make your site webkit specific". This is good advice not because of IE, but because there are still other browsers out there such as Opera Mobile.
In fact, MS blog post specifically states: "Now, it’s very easy to adapt a WebKit-optimized site to also support IE10." See that keyword I emphasized, it means they aren't telling people to abandon webkit. The examples they provide back that up as they leave webkit support in place and add either the non-prefixed standards compliant property or when that's not available, add the IE specific property alongside the webkit one.
As a side note, I take a site like this much less seriously when it stoops to the same level of bipartisan drivel and mud slinging that we all had to endure for the last six months with the US elections.
This coming from the same company which make a browser that doesn't adopt proper CSS or HTML? How about they fix IE to work correctly with CSS and then come back and say this.
Webkit's a pot calling a kettle black. MS does it = bad. Webkit does = ok? Double-Standards "do as I say, not as I do" b.s.'s what I am seeing.
Man, I don't know why I even bother to visit Slashdot these days. Everything is so much misinformation that you're wiser not reading anything.
If anything, this post is like the one from yesterday about rooting the Nexus 4 phone.
Here's the deal: Some CSS properties, before becoming standard, have vendor-specific prefixes, like -moz, -webkit, -ms and -o. Sometimes their syntax is different (for example with gradients), or things like border-radius-top-left vs border-top-left-radius. As they become standardized. the prefix is dropped.
Now, MS is advising developers to include the W3C-standard property name instead of (or in addition to) the vendor-specific one.
To give a simple example, MS supports the W3C standard border-radius, but if the developer only targets -webkit-border-radius, it will work only in webkit. BTW, webkit also supports W3C border-radius, so there's currently no reason to use the prefix, at least on this property.
Give it time. It's better than IE9 & not "fully baked" yet.
Diversity is a good thing. Everything-webkit is nearly as bas as everything-IE
I have seen this desperate post, a few times from Microsoft Shills unfortunately, your arguing against using a open standards complement browser...and one Microsoft can actively contribute to, to ensure standards vs changing to proprietary vendor who routinely uses lock-in. That seems so smart.
The bottom line in advocating locking yourself into a proprietary standard over a open standard going forward is exactly the opposite of diversity.
They should never be able to comment on when other do it?
That is a rather silly line of thinking. That is the same kind of BS as when people say "US citizens shouldn't be able to criticize China for human rights because the US doesn't have a perfect human rights record!"
MS has been getting pretty good with regards to standards and the like. As such I don't think there is anything wrong with them pointing out when others are not. Even if they weren't it wouldn't make their criticism less valid, it would just mean they should turn it inward as well.
For my reply to you here http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258813&cid=42019269
I stopped testing against IE six years ago. Microsoft breaks too many rules to bother trying to be compatible with them. When users hit problems with IE on my web sites I tell them to get a different browser like Safari, FireFox or Opera. After over a decade of dealing with Microsoft's arrogance I decided it wasn't worth it. If users want my content they either need to get a real browser or put up with the problems IE delivers to them.
Well, it only works with IE9 and higher anyway and the -moz-radius-border doesn't work on newer Firefox distros any more. So now I have three border-radius entries plus the pre-IE9 hack.
border-radius: 10px;
-moz-border-radius: 10px;
-webkit-border-radius:10px;
[John]
Shit better not happen!
Sorry, but I made a conscious decision NOT to make it work for IE. I found I just don't care if it works. For about 6 years now, I've only tested against Firefox.
Does it work with IE? Who knows! Who cares! Not me. Not my customers, I have to support Android and iOS, not WinCE 6, or Windows Phone 7 or Windows 8 Metro Phone Edition Delux. I mean FFS, if they won't back their own mobile standards why would me or my customers back it for them??
I wouldn't use the Webkit extensions though, as soon as (if) they get ratified, they get deprecated on the next release, and eventually unsupported.
You contradict yourself.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
So, if I get that correctly :
1. Sometime ago, -radius-border wasn't a standart.
2. Webkit implemented it, and prefixed it as : -WebKit-radius-border.
3. More recently, -radius-border became part of W3C standart.
4. Some (lots of ?) people didn't bother renaming -Webkit-radius-border as -radius-border.
Point 4. is pretty much expected, and is not going away for some time.
Now, why IE, as it supports -radius-border, doesn't create an alias for -WebKit-radius-border that makes a call to its W3C compliant -radius-border implementation ?
The funny thing is that MS pushed this type of non standard HTML by convincing web developers that it was more important to HTML to create consistant application interfaces rather than flexible content delivery and sales interface technology. So they pushed the idea of fixed screen sizes, fixed elements, and the like that only IE could, at the time, deliver. CSS and HTML5 depreciated the IE technology, but the damage was done. A generation of web developers were trained to look at web pages as fixed entities, not flexible markups. Even today I have to use some web pages that will only on IE because MS has convinced the MBAs that this is the most efficient way to do things.
So now we are at a place where Webkit and Gecko rule the world. Designers are writing web pages to work well on Chrome, Firefox, and Android, which fortunately for apple will make it work on Mac and iOS as well. MS, being the entitled rich kid, is whining that consumers are ignoring IE. Of course IE is being ignored. It is doesn't run on anything that consumers choose to use. The only people who use IE are corporate types that are forced to use IE. If I have a new social app, am I going to cate that it does not run on IE. No, I am going to care that it does not run Android. If MS wants it to run on IE, they have the resources to add the functionality to IE. Otherwise who cares?
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
True, but Opera - and Mozilla - were/are planning to, or already do, just support the -webkit prefixes in order to stay relevant in an increasingly this-site-best-rendered-using-webkit mobile era;
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/05/09/1310255/w3c-member-proposes-fix-for-css-prefix-problem
I don't know if they have since decided against that, but if not... -webkit prefixes to be had for all!
Really, MSFT is right here. But being right is only 1/10th the battle.
We need diversity and variety. Everyone else has thrown in the towel and just blindly adopted WebKit. This is a dangerous trend for security and stifles innovation. Thankfully one company still has the guts to implement their own standards-based HTML engine.
I wish people would stop offering the "well Microsoft used to do this so who are they to complain" excuse. Not only is the internet a different place, but so is Microsoft. They tried very hard to become as standards-compliant as they are now, and it took the risk of breaking existing websites along the way, despite the compatibility mode they offered. But the fact is, they made that decision. I still don't care about using IE, but I still give credit where credit is due.
Where the problem lies is mostly with the W3C. This is who we should be blaming. This is 2012, and all that ever happens with these people is bickering and squabbling, while the web still stagnates with a technology level of five years ago, and couldn't even decide on a standard for something as basic as rounded corners. This is the Achilles' Heel of the free software world, where everything is treated far too much as a democracy, so every nerd with an over-inflated ego has an idea for how something should be done and they're absolutely certain that theirs is the best way to do it. It not only results in the dozens and dozens of forks of major pieces of software in the free software community, but also results in any kind of standards decisions being delayed for literally years while everyone acts like babies instead of ratifying something already.
I can remember almost ten years ago when I was developing a very graphics-oriented website, and part of what I was being asked to do was to rotate a section of the page by 90 degrees. Except the content on this area was dynamic, containing an avatar and the user's name and stuff. There was no web standard for doing something like this at all, and my only option was going to be using Flash. But since Flash was prone to not line up perfectly among every browser (and I needed pixel-perfect alignment), not to mention was overkill for what I needed, even that was a problem. So eventually, after looking at our statistics, a good 98+% of the users used IE. The rest was Opera or Safari. So I made the decision to implement IE's proprietary DirectX filter extension, which allowed rotation of any HTML object in the page, and would apply this to any content normally inside of this object as well. The resulting effect was excellent.
Over time, I wasn't entirely satisfied with this single-browser solution (which had something to do with the fact that I'd switched to Opera myself!). But web technology still never caught up. So my way around this was to generate this section of the website on the server itself, using Perl and the GD library. I cached the resulting image for every user, only regenerating it when they changed their icon or any of their information. I was able to recreate the original DirectX filter version with 99% accuracy this way. But this was all only because our web host had been kind enough to install GD for me to begin with, since this was before we were running our own server.
The point of this story is, the ability to rotate components in a DOM tree has only recently become possible in HTML5. And HTML5 is still unfinished! Expect to see plenty more browser-dependent extensions over the decade, just like what happened last decade, all because the organization we rely on to give us these standards is dragging its heels and arguing every detail along the way.
Are you saying that because you think democrats are not hypocritical? Please think that, because that will entertain me.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"We're the only ones who get to do that!"
MS used IE to harm the web, on purpose to protect their monopoly. Their only interest is their monopoly power. I don't care if they woke up and are investing millions to catch back up again and I don't care if IE 11 is the best browser in history.
MS will embrace and extend to attack the web as it threatens their interests; if they ever end up in a dominant position again they will resume the attack.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
WRONG
Liar
Browsers have long established the idea of implementing working-standards in this way - I think it should merely be "adopt the standard and don't write extension in that way".
I don't know who started it, but the idea is flawed. Just use the proposals and support them directly, with a NB that they aren't finalized.
There's nothing wrong with that, and lying by omission, and lying completely, and getting +5 insightful?
fuck off
Remember back in the high school days? You have a bunch of kids, a few are more athletic than others. Some are pretty darn good. But mostly, about the best you can say for them is "not too bad". A couple might get scouted and offered a college athletic scholarship.
Microsoft/GOP would be like the Olympic competitor in being hypocritical.
I still remember how Bill Gates lied in court.
Come on Microsoft, if Webkit has 90% market share maybe YOU should adapt to serve the majority? DUH. Also, in your IE engine it's not hard to alias radius to webkit-radius or whatever I'm sure. Stop bitching and just make a good product. Most don't care as long as it just works. Not excuses.
Any developer / web designer will tell you that Internet Explorer is the bane of their design existence. I've seen whole projects stale for days because of bugs / "features" in IE. Fragmentation is never good though. For example, now with gradient backgrounds you have to have declarations for Webkit, Mozilla, IE & even Opera. It's absolutely insanely wasteful of developer time, client bandwidth & contributes nothing but headaches imo.
Yes, Microsoft, that is how it feels.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
And webkit prefix is supposed to be either not yet ratified in the standard features
But for how many years should one reasonably expect web developers to include -webkit-, -moz-, -o-, and -ms- in all their pages while they wait for W3C to operate at its glacial pace? Some browser makers have even threatened to implement other browsers' prefixes (compatibly, I hope).
Look, if Microsoft didn't like people using "non-standard" filter code, they shouldn't have come up with the whole idea in the first place. Even IE 10 (especially IE 10) has it's own equivalent filter markup for CSS. If they didn't LOVE THIS, why are they doing exactly the same thing themselves? Christ. Get me some coffee.
This signature intentionally left blank.
the issue is the popularity of webkit on the mobile platform. Both iOS and android both supported it from the start, then blackberry and PS Vita adopted it because they were to lazy to fix there own engines. Now you want IE to do the same?! These extensions were prefixed BECAUSE they are non-standard and now that they are standardized both iOS and android have used the standard syntax for at least the last 4 releases. There is diversity on the desktop which is why these prefixes are ok on the desktop - everyone except for IE uses them and when a prefixed style is popular enough then they work towards standardization which is what helps the web grow. This is why diversity in the browser space is so important. We used to complian about IE on the desktop because of there popularity but we have a good balance of market share on the desktop now between gecko, webkit, and IE (I imagine opera is even seeing better support these days as a side-effect). Microsoft is just complaining because they are now seeing the flip-side of the coin in the mobile market - AND THEY ARE RIGHT! If android shipped with firefox instead of webkit then we wouldn't have this issue since the market would then be divided, somewhat evenly, between iPhone and Android
If yo9u sue a function that is labeled as %toolkit%-function then it flags a possible difference between that and the "normal" function
besides MS at one point had a whole RUNTIME of special extensions (active X) and required folks to use at least 3 of them on every page if you wanted to be a Microsoft "Partner" which as an OEM meant you didn't have to wait until example Windows 95 was in stores to be able to get the code and stuff for drivers.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Oh. You got beat up by jocks in high school, so now the [party of your choice] and Bill Gates are the worst. I see it now, it all makes sense.
Please, tell me about other things you hate.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Also if they want us to test against IE10 an IE10 mobile they need to provide it for Linux and OSX.
Is there a reason that Windows 8 won't run in VirtualBox for Linux or VirtualBox for Mac OS X?
Bwahahaha! Microsof Bwahaha ! Bwahahaha! Bwaha ! Bwahahaha! Bwahahaha! Microsoft Bwahahaha! Bwahahaha! Bwahahaha! Standards Bwahahaha! Bwahahaha!
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Microsoft has been driving through its proprietary, patent-encumbered Office Standards ("Office Open XML") by all sorts of measures. Now, let them eat some shit themselves and implement Webkit-specific tags. Champagne !
Release an Android version of IE and then I won't see this as a crock of shit and an excuse to get us to buy your Windows operating systems.
I am sick of webdevs coding solely for webkit. It is boring, it is anti-standard and furthermore it ignores that most of their clients won't be able to use their site. I am just so sick of this over-specialization. It causes problems with IE users and causes LOTS of problems with Firefox users. Plenty of people use firefox and there are great reasons to use Firefox. Please understand the web is open and kept open by open standards. not -webkit-* CSS markup.
Microsoft needs to get a license for WebKit and other license for Internet Technologies. Microsoft's Internet Explorer was not able to pass the Internets standards and acid test.
I still have some CSS like this:
Mozilla finally got with the program and implemented border-radius without a prefix. It took a while.
The border of a radius? What is that even? Maybe next time have someone who has seen a line of CSS before write the summary.
Then again, web developers wouldn't be writing -WebKit-radius-border, or anything else prefixed -WebKit/-Moz for that matter, if the bloody attributes had been supported by Microsoft for any material amount of time... Adding insult to injury, the fact of the matter is that mobile users will almost always be browsing using something built on top of WebKit. In light of that, the developers' laziness is understandable -- though arguably not excusable.
Also, WebKit is not doing exactly what everyone hated IE doing years ago. Back then, IE was hated because, in addition to interesting stuff like -ms-behavior, it was active used to promote technologies -- ActiveX in particular -- that could only ever work on Windows. Webkit, in contrast, is only pushing new attributes such as border-radius, or things such as local (sqlite-based) databases and location services. The only credible argument to be made against WebKit was related to the video tag, which was loaded with codec- and patent-related problems. And that horse died long before Mozilla woke up to the fact that h.264 hardware was all over the place in the mobile space.
http://leaverou.github.com/prefixfree/
Break free from CSS prefix hell!
Only 2KB gzipped
-prefix-free lets you use only unprefixed CSS properties everywhere. It works behind the scenes, adding the current browser’s prefix to any CSS code, only when it’s needed.
As critics of FOSSies have said all along, they aren't trying to prevent monopolies, they're just making sure it's THEIR monopoly.
If Microsoft wants their standards adopted by W3C why don't they just make it a corporate mission to stuff the W3C panels and get it done like they did with ISO and their Office document standard?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Webkit and Firefox are doing the right thing by including the proposed specs with a browser specific entension (-webkit or -moz). Web developers/designers are doing the wrong thing by using those in public web pages where a standard has been ratified.
Back in the day, MS perverted the specs by NOT using -ie (or -ms if they prefer) for IE specific interpretations of existing standards. In fact, they seemed to go out of their way to create traps that even a conscientious developer could fall in to.
That doesn't make the current crop of developers right.
The source makes it ironic.
But it does not mean it's untrue.
The statement is valid, regardless of who is making it. And as ironic as it is, given Microsoft's history, they have to be given at least a little credit for some of their most recent work at being standards compliant, and contributing to the standards process. Even if you don't always agree with their decisions, they're certainly better than they used to be.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
We just spent $100K un-weighted to support IE, because even the most recent version don't have features that others browsers have.
Meaning its a shitty website.
Well, who didn't see this coming when everyone started putting their own prefixes on things.....
Can browser makers do anything with managing to fuck it up.
How does it taste, MS?
I hope this type of thing continues as MS circles the drain and is finally flushed out of our systems.
One Microsoft Way? FUCK YOU
You only have a tiny market share in mobile phones. It is like worrying about breaking Omniweb.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
All the modern browsers implement border-radius et al. just fine. No need for those silly prefixes. The only odd duck (which I don't give a shit about on my blog anyway) are the MS-tards. Fuck 'em and feed 'em cuz I don't need 'em.
border-radius: 15px;
-moz-border-radius: 15px;
-ms-border-radius: 15px;
-o-border-radius: 15px;
-webkit-border-radius: 15px;
Look at that mess! It's not what the web developer is trying to say. This is more like what they want to say ...
border-radius: 15px;
-w3cnext-border-radius: 15px;
The web developer is wanting to use the expected behaviour of the next css standard. This prefix says that, or perhaps a "-css4beta-" prefix so we don't get caught by css5beta. IMO the web browsers should be saying what they are trying to provide not just that "this isn't the current version, it's mine".
I am NOT saying that the "-vendor-" prefixes should go away, but just that when it becomes pretty much certain that a particular change should be in the next standard it goes into the extra prefix. That prefix becomes what would be in the standard if it were ratified tomorrow.
At that point nobody cares how slow the W3C is.
Don't forget that mobile Webkit does have some annoying quirks, not least due to the way the whole touch thing has been integrated. It doesn't help that many devices are stuck on old versions. So it's actually a bit more complicated than just the -webkit prefixes.
And the always have been IMHO - when ever there is a platform with a majority market share then the de facto standard is always going to be whatever that platform supports.Back when IE had overwhelming market share in the desktop people could cry all they like about how their code was "standards compliant" but if it didn't work for the vast majority of visitors then it was essentially broken and the devs were just wasting their time. Other browser vendors can either support what the majority holder is doing or accept that some sites won't work quite right and I don't see that has changed in anyway - just because it's the other way around now doesn't alter anything.
> WebKit is doing exactly what Microsoft accuses it of. They are developing their own extensions and putting them out as webkit- prefixed.
How can a WebKit extension be non-standard, it's a WebKit extension. Why is it that WebKit works on everything except Microsoft Web Browser.
AccountKiller
If you're heavily relying on webkits then you must like walking through minefields on your holiday off. At any moment browser vendors can make a simple update and throw off your entire stylesheet. Used lightly, with care taken that fall back options are acceptable, they are a great benefit to any website, but I have to agree with Microsoft that they're a crutch rather than an innovation. Browser vendors will always dictate what kind of CSS can and can't be used in the market, as great as WC3 is for helping 'standardize the coding masses' any senior level designer will remain nimble and up to date on how this technology changes. When all is said in done, stability is more important than features, so be safe and use webkits with care.
Just multi-boot Windows or run it in a VM, just like how you would test on Linux or OSX. [...] it's actually easier than with an ipad where you cannot run the OS on anything but an ipad
And one can't (lawfully) run Mac OS X on anything but a Mac. I was under the impression that VM software supported a Mac OS X guest only under a Mac OS X host, and even then only Lion (10.7) and later, and I estimate that fewer than 100 percent of smaller web developers own a Mac.
Do you have various android tablets for testing all the different versions of webkit that come with with different versions of android?
A large enough shop will own multiple Android devices.
There is no such thing as "radius-border" in CSS.
Which means users have to pay by the bit to download properties prefixed to a browser that they don't use, unless you make a separate version of the CSS for each browser and send them with Vary: user-agent
Oh. You got beat up by jocks in high school, so now the [party of your choice] and Bill Gates are the worst. I see it now, it all makes sense.
Please, tell me about other things you hate.
Most politicians are hypocritical. That is not the question at hand. You are apparently unable to see the analogy of normal average hypocritical and being a super-super-star. Let me see if I can make it clearer.
Normal politicians == normal hypocrites.
GOP politicians (most - but *NOT* all) = Olympic level hypocrites.
Most politicians are hypocritical. That is not the question at hand. You are apparently unable to see the analogy of normal average hypocritical and being a super-super-star. Let me see if I can make it clearer.
That's ok, at least I can see the hypocrisy is rampant even in the party I favor, which is something you seem incapable of. So I guess we're even.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
YOUR "CODE" lacked error trapping here -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42016197 (if you call using prebuilt functions coding, that is - more like a kid using legos, lol!)...
---
Additionally - Didn't YOU say THIS also, in regards to coding:
"...cos we all try to write code that "looks cool" and you know, writing code that functions and easy to debug is all of secondary importance" - by crutchy (1949900) on Sunday November 18, @02:55AM (#42017605)
FROM -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42017605
"?"
QUESTION - Where's YOUR code that functions AND is easy to debug?
---
It isn't - LMAO:
* You write code like a NOOB does, completely omitting error trapping... and the proof's right in that 1st link above!
APK
P.S.=> Lastly/Again - Funny my code ran 5x perfectly here too, eh?
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42014943
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42016015
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42014957
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42014957
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42015649
(As well as 100's of times the past 1.5-2 yrs. now using it vs. trolls like yourself... perfect, every single time!)
* Care to EXPLAIN those PERFECT OUTPUTS, (lol) 'CruTcHy'?
So much for this "tidbit" from you, eh (lol) 'CruTcHy':
---
"i have never been talking about the code that you actually run in your python interpreter" - by crutchy (1949900) on Sunday November 18, @04:02AM (#42017797)
Man - First of all - You can't even write ENGLISH properly - sentences begin with capital letters
Perhaps it's MY FAULT here, lol (not)... How on EARTH could I expect you to write maintainable code WITH error trapping?
Clue/New NEWS/NewsFlash: That's the code of MINE'S providing WHAT YOU NEED shown in the links above (& for others like you, as trolls, probably you posting again as ac)... lmao!
What's THAT kids? Oh, yes - that's right: You GUESSED IT - A dose of "ReVeRsE-PsyChoLoGy"... lmao!
... apk
Apparently you can't read. I said in the first line:
Most politicians are hypocritical.
You're also dumb enough to believe the 'other' politicians are less hypocritical than the ones in your favored party. An act of blindness that is all too common in America.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I see your problem. You do not understand there are levels of dickishness and fuckupness.
The GOP have shown themselves to be superstars at this game, to such an extent that they managed to blind their devoted followers. *bravo GOP*
Let me guess, you also thing the GOP is full of racist sexist bigots who want to trample the poor people? They're worse hypocrites, and basically everything we hate about life. It's a good thing we've always been at war against the GOP.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Not really. While some of the bits of the post cited on adapting WebKit-optimized webpages to also be IE10-optmized might be seen in that light (the parts that refer to making sure to use unprefixed versions of webkit-prefixed CSS properties where IE10 supports the unprefixed version), what Microsoft is doing is exactly what the article title suggests -- telling people how to make websites work well on IE10 specifically. A lot of that has nothing to do with "vendor neutrality" (some of it using special ms-prefixed CSS, and a lot of it is about using non-standard MS JavaScript APIs or HTML extensions.)
Nobody in the developed world still pays by the kilobyte, let alone by the bit.
By that definition, the United States (home of Slashdot) is not part of what you call "the developed world". Monthly caps on data transfer, on the order of 2 to 5 million kilobytes per month, are routine on satellite and cellular Internet plans in the United States. Or by "the developed world", do you refer only to surfing at home in markets served by DSL, cable, or fiber?
I've lived in the United States continuously [...] to the best of my knowledge everybody (who has internet at all) has theoretically unlimited internet
For $50/mo, satellite customers are only allowed to transfer 10 GB/mo. Please see this story about ViaSat and the plans offered by WildBlue.