- Firefox will support non-standard CSS for WebKit compatibility. Plans are afoot for Firefox to work with pre-complete web standards as implemented in rivals’ browsers. Mozilla developers have revealed a plan to implement support for a subset of non-standard CSS prefixes used in WebKit, –webkit.
- Browsers free download - Adobe Flash Player, Internet Download Manager, Google Chrome, and many more programs.
- Microsoft decision to abandon browser development could not occur in the WebKit world. However, it’s important to remember that Apple and Google — two of the most powerful global IT companies — are.
- Next in our list of non-Google alternative web browsers for Linux is GNOME Web. It is a simple, clean browser built for the GNOME desktop environment. Originally called Epiphany, Web is the default browser for GNOME. It started out using the Gecko layout engine created by Mozilla but switched to WebKitGTK+.
< Platform | Layout
Avant Browser: Alternative Browsers Option Avant Browser is an ultra-fast alternative browsers option with a user-friendly interface. One feature that makes it stand out are its three rendering engines – Trident, Gecko, and Webkit.
Problem: WebKit mobile web monoculture. There is currently (still) a WebKit mobile web monoculture, numerous sites that have WebKit-specific content and reduced content/style/functionality for everyone else, despite numerous evangelists at Mozilla, Opera, and Microsoft working with web developers to publish standards-based cross-browser content.
Google add to my drive. What is Mozilla doing about the problem?
- Studying the extent of -webkit- property dependence (Bugzilla 708406).
- Prioritizing standardization for such properties that have high levels of -webkit- prefix usage on the web (text-size-adjust, CSS3 Animations/Transitions/Transforms).
- Experimenting with some -webkit- prefix support to see if it fixes sites.
Is Firefox going to support WebKit prefixes?
- Very UNLIKELY - per our study of -webkit- dependent sites and experiments with some -webkit- prefix support see if it fixes sites (answer: very few, and even breaks some).
If so, when is that happening?
- We don't have a specific release or date yet. We are continuing to study which sites appear to require Webkit-prefixed properties, and if implementing them actually fixes those sites or not (WebKit-specific sites sometimes depend on other WebKit-specific features, e.g.: touch events, WebSQL, etc.)
Webkit Browsers For Windows 10
For more details, read on, and see also
- 1CSS vendor-prefix compatibility
- 1.1problem statement
- 1.12Data on vendor-specific prefixes
- 1.12.1Initial CSS properties dataset
problem statement
Sites that have WebKit-specific content and back-up content for everyone else.
-webkit- properties are used so much on mobile content in particular that non-WebKit browsers face a Prisoner's Dilemma problem, analogous to past quirks battles (e.g. 2003-4 era innerHTML and undetected document.all).
data: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708406
problematic sites
See http://people.mozilla.com/~atrain/mobile/Evangelism/chrome-compare/chrome-compare.html for a comparison of Chrome on Android vs. Mobile Firefox mobile/13.0a1 Nightly
Feel free to add specific problematic sites here so QA & Evangelism can investigate and follow-up:
- .
See the tracking bug 739832 for more.
goals
The underlying open web goal:
- Open up the webkit-specific part of the web to other vendors in the same way that we had to be practical about what IE-proprietary or IE-only technologies to support.
straw proposal
- Prioritize standards for commonly used -webkit- prefixed properties.
- CSS3 Animations (Mozilla ships unprefixed support)
- CSS3 Transitions (Mozilla ships unprefixed support)
- CSS3 Transforms (Mozilla ships unprefixed support)
- Consider implementing some -webkit- prefixed properties.
- Experiment with implementation and see if that fixes sites (the efficacy test).
- So far, efficacy is poor (very few sites are fixed), and there are negative side-effects (some sites got worse with -webkit- prefixes).
- Experiment with implementation and see if that fixes sites (the efficacy test).
straw proposal downsides
- Unfortunately for the open web, implementing a -webkit- prefixed property (outside of WebKit) will nearly legitimize (make people assume they'll work forever) the use of -webkit- prefixed properties.
- .
possible downside mitigation
- In the short term we can at least remove pain for web authors and users.
- In the long term we can ensure the unprefixed properties (in CR drafts) work and encourage authors to switch to them. Done for:
- transforms
- transitions
- animations
- border-image
Adobe premiere elements free mac. See and try How you can help with removing -moz- prefixes.
questions and methodology
For sites in general:
- What are the thresholds (even approximate) for supporting an other-vendor prefixed property vs. not?
- How much of this is due to user-agent sniffing?
- Is there an approximate % of top N sites that justifies it?
- Is there a set of specific top sites that justifies it?
- Could grab the Alexa 50 for mobile and compare side-by-side
- How should we consider occurrence counts of -webkit- properties?
- Weighted by PageRank or equivalent?
- Severity of feature absence. Missing some properties breaks a lot more than missing others. Consider usability of page with/without the feature, not just how often it is used. E.g. tap-highlight-color does not affect the user's ability to use a website the same way text-size-adjust does.
- .
For specific sites:
- *Which* sites will work *how much* better if we implement *which* properties?
- The sites which are currently 'broken' should be listed above in 'problematic sites' and have a bug# for each one.
- .
parsing other vendor prefixes approaches
- parse other vendor prefixed properties only in conjunction with parsing the equivalent unprefixed properties
- only do it for environments where critically necessary, i.e. mobile not desktop, to encourage use of standard equivalents.
unprefixing principles
- unprefixing things early (before CR) should be an exceptional case
- what is the methodology for 'exceptional' unprefixing?
- unprefixing things must be evaluated carefully on case-by-case basis.
- unprefixing is not something to do routinely just to 'go faster' by a few months.
- put the energy first into contributing and passing test suites instead.
- .
Who owns caesars casino. See also: Policy for experimental CSS features in Gecko.
meetings minutes discussions
Upload pictures from android to google drive. 2010:
- 2010-05-10 Microsoft states support for a -webkit- property and then withdraws it a day later due to community feedback: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/iemobile/archive/2010/05/10/javascript-and-css-changes-in-ie-mobile-for-windows-phone-7.aspx in particular: 'We've also added support for the -webkit-text-size-adjust CSS selector. This selector allows you to control how text on the Web page is scaled to increase readability for the user (you can also use -ms-text-size-adjust, IE Mobile recognizes both).. [one day later] .'[Update 05/11/2010: based on community feedback, we will only be implementing the -ms- prefix, not the -webkit- one.]'
- 2010-05-11 Jonathan Snook: Vendors using Competing Prefixes
2011:
![Webkit Webkit](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/BrowserUsageShare.png/660px-BrowserUsageShare.png)
- 2011-11-15 Henri Sivonen: Vendor Prefixes Are Hurting the Web
- 2011-11-16 Glazblog: CSS vendor prefixes, an answer to Henri Sivonen
- 2011-11-18 Infrequently Noted / Alex Russell blog: Vendor Prefixes Are A Rousing Success
2012:
- 2012-02-06 CSSWG - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/0313.html (IRC log)
- 2012-02-07
- CSSWG - http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/css/20120207#l-550 , http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/css/20120207#l-1066
- blog post: http://qfox.nl/weblog/244 'Prefixed to death'
- UBelly: Vendor prefixes: the good, the bad and the ugly
- 2012-02-09
- Bruce Lawson blog: On the vendor prefixes problem
- Eric Meyer: Unfixed
- Christian Heilmann blog: Now vendor prefixes have become a problem, want to help fix it?
- CNET: W3C co-chair: Apple, Google power causing Open Web crisis
- Easy Designs Blog: This Must Not Happen!
- Glazblog: CALL FOR ACTION: THE OPEN WEB NEEDS YOU *NOW*
- Remy Sharp's blog: Vendor Prefixes - about to go south
- Gilles Vandenoostende blog: On Vendor Prefixes
- Lea Verou: Vendor prefixes, the CSS WG and me
- .net: CSS vendor prefixes threaten open web
- WebMonkey: WebKit Isn’t Breaking the Web, You Are
- YCombinator Hacker News: 'Long experience of contacting sites suggests that it is, at best, of limited effectiveness. .' - hoppipolla at Opera on limits of evangelism
- 2012-02-10
- Pam Griffith: Thoughts on all this vendor prefix nonsense
- Robert O'Callahan blog: Alternatives To Supporting -webkit Prefixes In Other Engines
- Web Standards Project: Call for action on Vendor Prefixes
- .
- 2012-02-14
- A List Apart: The Vendor Prefix Predicament: ALA’s Eric Meyer Interviews Tantek Çelik
- 2012-02-15
- Alex Russell: Misdirection
- Dylan Wilbanks: Vendor prefixes and their discontents
- .
- 2012-04-25
- .net: Opera confirms WebKit prefix usage
- .
- 2012-04-27
- Dev.Opera: Opera Mobile Emulator build with experimental WebKit prefix support - has list of -webkit- properties Opera has decided to support so far.
- WebMonkey: Opera Forges Ahead With Plan to Support WebKit Prefixes
- .
- 2012-06-04
- mozilla.dev.platform: Policy for experimental CSS features in Gecko - proposal by David Baron
- .
- 2012-07-03
- PPK: Vendor prefixes are fucking batshit crazy (troll?)
- .
- change.org: Microsoft, Mozilla & Opera: Don’t make -webkit- prefixes a de facto standard
FAQ
- .
Next Steps
- Propose -webkit- properties to implement in Firefox Mobile, each based on specific data from bug 708406.
- -webkit-. due to prevalence of usage in x% of sites .
- (none so far that are justified by the experiments done / data collected)
Data on vendor-specific prefixes
Here's a summary of the data collection and analysis that has been conducted regarding the use of various CSS vendor-specific prefixes. Get backup pro 3 0 3 download free.
The current datasets, collected by John Jensen, are:
Initial CSS properties dataset
- Completed in November 2011
- Summary of 88,000 CSS files from top 30,000 sites on the web, collected using Desktop FF 8.0 User-Agent
- Tables and summary reports in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708406
- Written report and summary tables are attached to the ticket.
- Summary file, in CSV format, is 620MB compressed, 7.2GB uncompressed, available at http://people.mozilla.com/~jjensen/css.csv.gz
Q and A
- how many sites in your mobile Webkit browser crawl use at least one of 'transition', 'transition-timing-function', 'transition-duration', 'transition-property', 'transition-delay' (ignoring prefixes)?
1245 / 30087 = 4.13%
- how many use them only with -webkit prefixes (no -moz or unprefixed versions of the properties)?
336 / 30087 = 1.12%
- how many use them only with -webkit prefixes and unprefixed (no -moz versions of the properties)?
365 / 30087 = 1.21%
- For each CSS prefix for which there are both -moz- and -webkit- prefixes, what percentage of domains host CSS that uses only the -webkit- version and not the -moz- or unprefixed version?
text-size-adjust | 510 | 1.70% |
box-shadow | 428 | 1.42% |
border-radius | 412 | 1.37% |
appearance | 379 | 1.26% |
font-smoothing | 285 | 0.95% |
tap-highlight-color | 250 | 0.83% |
transform | 75 | 0.25% |
border-top-left-radius | 72 | 0.24% |
border-top-right-radius | 72 | 0.24% |
transition-duration | 61 | 0.20% |
animation-duration | 56 | 0.19% |
animation-name | 56 | 0.19% |
border-bottom-left-radius | 55 | 0.18% |
border-bottom-right-radius | 55 | 0.18% |
transition-property | 49 | 0.16% |
animation-iteration-count | 45 | 0.15% |
padding-start | 45 | 0.15% |
background-size | 43 | 0.14% |
animation-timing-function | 42 | 0.14% |
box-sizing | 42 | 0.14% |
Larger, as-yet-unprocessed datasets
- Raw data downloading completed in mid-January 2012, using these UAs:
- latest Android Native Browser from ICS
- latest Mobile Safari UA
- Includes all HTML, Javascript, CSS files in compressed format
- Roughly 1.1m files downloaded for each UA
Retrieved from 'https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=Platform/Layout/CSS_Compatibility&oldid=753859'
(Redirected from Comparison of web browser engines)
This article provides general information for notable browser engines.
Some of these engines have shared origins.[1] For example, the WebKit engine was created by forking the KHTML engine in 2001.[2] Then, in 2013, WebKit was forked to create the Blink engine.[3]
General information[edit]
What Is Webkit
Engine | Status | Steward | License | Embedded in |
---|---|---|---|---|
WebKit | Active | Apple | GNU LGPL, BSD-style | Safari browser, Gnome Web, plus all browsers hosted on the iOSApp Store |
Blink | Active | GNU LGPL, BSD-style | Google Chrome and all other Chromium-based browsers such as Microsoft Edge, Brave and Opera | |
Gecko | Active | Mozilla | Mozilla Public | Firefox browser and Thunderbird email client, plus forks such as SeaMonkey and Waterfox |
Servo | Active | Linux Foundation | Mozilla Public | experimental browser |
Goanna | Active | M. C. Straver[4] | Mozilla Public | Pale Moon and Basilisk browsers |
NetSurf | Active | hobbyists[5] | GNU GPLv2 | NetSurf browser[6] |
KHTML | Active | KDE | GNU LGPL | Konqueror browser |
EdgeHTML | Maintenance only | Microsoft | Proprietary | Universal Windows Platform apps; formerly in the Edge browser[7] |
Trident | Discontinued | Microsoft | Proprietary | Internet Explorer browser and Microsoft Outlook email client |
Presto | Discontinued | Opera Software | Proprietary | formerly in the Opera browser |
Operating system support[edit]
Webkit Html
The operating systems that actively-developed engines can run on without emulation.
Engine | Windows | macOS | iOS | Android | Linux | BSD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WebKit | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Blink[8] | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
EdgeHTML | Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
Gecko | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Servo[9] | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | ? |
Goanna[10] | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes |
NetSurf[11] | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes |
![Non Webkit Browsers Non Webkit Browsers](https://www.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/firefox-tabs-design-refresh-proton-not-final.png)
See also[edit]
References[edit]
Non Webkit Browsers
- ^Limer, Eric (2015-07-29). 'Can Microsoft Edge Start the Browser War We So Desperately Need?'. Popular Mechanics. Retrieved 2016-01-07.
- ^Paul Festa (2003-01-14). 'Apple snub stings Mozilla'. CNET Networks. Archived from the original on 2009-09-06. Retrieved 2017-02-16.
- ^Bright, Peter (April 3, 2013). 'Google going its own way, forking WebKit rendering engine'. Ars Technica. Conde Nast. Retrieved March 9, 2017.
- ^M. C. Straver. 'About Moonchild Productions'. Archived from the original on 2017-03-13. Retrieved 2018-04-19.
- ^'NetSurf Developer page'. Netsurf-browser.org. Retrieved 7 February 2019.
- ^'NetSurf web browser homepage'. Netsurf-browser.org. Retrieved 7 February 2019.
- ^Mackie, Kurt (10 December 2018). 'Microsoft Edge Browser To Get New Rendering Engine but EdgeHTML Continues'. Redmond Mag. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
- ^'Blink - The Chromium Projects'. Chromium.org. Retrieved 22 April 2019.
- ^The Servo Project. 'README.md'. Github.com. Retrieved 2016-04-24.
- ^'Remove target platforms we cannot reasonably support · Issue #184 · MoonchildProductions/UXP'. Github.com. Retrieved 22 April 2019.
- ^'NetSurf - Downloads'. Netsurf-browser.org. Retrieved 22 April 2019.
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_browser_engines&oldid=1003106252'