I’m finding caniuse unhelpful as I’m seeing non standardized/experimental API’s included with no label of distinction. This goes against the scope of the post as I’m looking to discuss standardized API that Safari/WebKit does not implement (for example WebMidi was a good one given earlier). I find caniuse harmful in this discussion due to it’s lack of status/standard label in it’s table.
Are you asking this genuinely to find some items that Webkit doesn't implement, or are you coming in with the conclusion already that WebKit implements everything. Just saying since your replies here seem to be arguing the latter without giving benefit of the doubt to the original posters.
E.g. if you really want to learn what features safari may not have, why not actually go down cyanydeez's post and eliminate each as not real standards. Unless this is a "do my homework/persuasive paper at job for me", they've already provided the pointer and if you really want to learn, going through the list one by one on your own time is probably high ROI.
> Are you asking this genuinely to find some items that Webkit doesn't implement
I’m trying to find standard items that WebKit doesn’t implement. Comment chains usually devolve like so:
X: “Safari doesn’t implement Z feature I like and chrome does”
Y: “Z feature is not a web standard but a chrome pushed feature”
Conversation ends and then repeats on another thread. Over and over and over again. Chrome-backed features muddy the discussion we should actually be having: What standards does WebKit not implement and why
Since caniuse lacks the labeling of what stages an API are in , it’s a misleading answer to a very specific question. A better answer would be a link to MDN web docs that does show if a feature is experimental and shows browse capability (all though not to the extent that caniuse can)
> or are you coming in with the conclusion already that WebKit implements everything
No. It doesn’t make sense to make a thread actively searching for standards not implemented. I could’ve just not if I believe foolishly that Safari implements everything.
> if you really want to learn what features safari may not have, why not actually go down cyanydeez's post and eliminate each as not real standards
More so than wanting to see what feature safari may not have, I believe HackerNews will benefit from an outright guided discussion. Could I do it? Sure I’m hell right tempted to take caniuse & MDN web Docs data and export them out as a categorizable & filterable table of standard, experimental, and exclusive API’s but I believe this approach is far more engaging. It is something I’m actively experimenting in my head about how to go about it.
I’m finding caniuse unhelpful as I’m seeing non standardized/experimental API’s included with no label of distinction. This goes against the scope of the post as I’m looking to discuss standardized API that Safari/WebKit does not implement (for example WebMidi was a good one given earlier). I find caniuse harmful in this discussion due to it’s lack of status/standard label in it’s table.
Are you asking this genuinely to find some items that Webkit doesn't implement, or are you coming in with the conclusion already that WebKit implements everything. Just saying since your replies here seem to be arguing the latter without giving benefit of the doubt to the original posters.
E.g. if you really want to learn what features safari may not have, why not actually go down cyanydeez's post and eliminate each as not real standards. Unless this is a "do my homework/persuasive paper at job for me", they've already provided the pointer and if you really want to learn, going through the list one by one on your own time is probably high ROI.
> Are you asking this genuinely to find some items that Webkit doesn't implement
I’m trying to find standard items that WebKit doesn’t implement. Comment chains usually devolve like so:
X: “Safari doesn’t implement Z feature I like and chrome does”
Y: “Z feature is not a web standard but a chrome pushed feature”
Conversation ends and then repeats on another thread. Over and over and over again. Chrome-backed features muddy the discussion we should actually be having: What standards does WebKit not implement and why
Since caniuse lacks the labeling of what stages an API are in , it’s a misleading answer to a very specific question. A better answer would be a link to MDN web docs that does show if a feature is experimental and shows browse capability (all though not to the extent that caniuse can)
> or are you coming in with the conclusion already that WebKit implements everything
No. It doesn’t make sense to make a thread actively searching for standards not implemented. I could’ve just not if I believe foolishly that Safari implements everything.
> if you really want to learn what features safari may not have, why not actually go down cyanydeez's post and eliminate each as not real standards
More so than wanting to see what feature safari may not have, I believe HackerNews will benefit from an outright guided discussion. Could I do it? Sure I’m hell right tempted to take caniuse & MDN web Docs data and export them out as a categorizable & filterable table of standard, experimental, and exclusive API’s but I believe this approach is far more engaging. It is something I’m actively experimenting in my head about how to go about it.
1 reply →