New HTML and CSS Features in Safari 3.1

[riscy]

I just downloaded and tried the new version of Safari out of curiosity, but it crashes every time I try to load the gmail page

Anyone else getting this problem?

I am so sticking with FireFox!

 

[morespce54]

Sweet...
Now, all we only need is to wait for other browsers out there to catch up... someday...

 

[Sal Collaziano]

It's nice that you can now double-click the tab bar to open a new tab now...

 

[juststranded]

Until IE 6 is fazed out and FireFox and IE 7 support font sources, there is always sIFR. It's not hard to implement, but admittedly pure CSS would be much easier if it was fully suported.

 

[shaver]

CSS Animation is obviously CSS.
HTML5 transitions... I'm gonna guess those are HTML 5.
Downloadable Fonts are CSS as well.

(There are no such things at HTML5 transitions that I can find reference to in either the WHATWG or W3C drafts, so I presume you mean the WebKit CSS Transformation extensions.)

CSS Animations and Transformations are WebKit extensions, which is why they have the "-webkit" prefix in the attributes. Such extensions are perfectly legal (and CSS explicitly permits them), but the behaviours aren't part of any standard, and to my knowledge there hasn't been a specification proposed to the W3C by the WebKit team. They have expressed interest in doing so, but they may have decided that they didn't need feedback from other implementors before shipping, in which case the proposal may well appear now that they've got the release behind them. Transformations appear to be a derivative of an earlier CSS working group draft, and I might have just missed Apple submitting their changes for consideration, since I don't follow the private lists.

Downloadable fonts are mostly covered by the CSS3 working draft in question (last updated August 2002!), though there's a fair bit of underspecified behaviour around formats or to what extent it's safe to stick possibly-hostile font information into an unsuspecting operating system's rendering model. It will be interesting to see what effects the implementation feedback from the WebKit team will have on that specification. (They may have already provided it; I'm not au courant.)

Mike

 

[uv23]

GAH! Back button-related ajaxiness is even worse in 3.1. I didn't think it was possible. I give this update my most severe negative rating.

 

[bobr1952]

Sweet...
Now, all we only need is to wait for other browsers out there to catch up... someday...

Isn't that always the case. I do some web work and stick to pretty basic stuff just because of the issue of so many browsers out there with many of them still supporting only basic design standards.

 

[Yvan256]

Wonderful, more feature creep to slow down my surfing joy.

I suppose this is a nice feature for those that want it, but if they could just make sites compatible with a very minimum web browser, then life would be better. Why can't sites just get by with 1993 era HTML. Man that was fast! My Apple IIe could surf the web over a Super Serial card and 2400 baud modem as fast as my iMac can today. 80x24 text was enough and still is.
Lynx won't work on many sites now as they expect you have a ton of plugins. When all I want to do is see a jpeg, text, and maybe a moov.

While not in the majority, a lot of people are coding to W3C standards, which means very light (X)HTML pages with CSS, minimal javascript (if any) and no plug-ins requirements.

I try to make my websites work with images, css, javascript and plug-ins disabled. Yes, they should work fine in Lynx, Netscape 3, etc.

 

[Analog Kid]

I don't like this "serves two masters" bit. That's part of what got IE into trouble. A browser should serve a single master-- the standards compliant web. If they need an enhanced and scriptable view inside OS X, then subclass webkit and have at it.

I have experienced that bug. You have not. What is your point by chiming in with "ERM... NOPE?" Clearly it doesn't happen all the time, as evidenced by your screen shots, but I never made that claim. Just that it was a bug, and that it happened to me. Are you trying to invalidate that?

Wow, you take your bugs personally... Can you explain what the bug is, because I'm not really seeing it just from the screenshot.

 

[Analog Kid]

And this css animation is better than the cross browser script.aculo.us because?

Because scriptaculous has always felt like a hack. A hack that I use, and a reasonably well executed hack, but this bit about waiting for a page to load, then scanning the page to attach handlers to a bunch of elements, then looping through intermediate states (albeit the looping is handled by the library, but still) and mucking getting the script to manipulate string values for properties just feels, well, over the top...

If I had a nickel for every time I forgot to add +'px' in my code...

That said, I'll still use it before I use -webkit* properties.

 

[Max Book]

Anyone have problems with LogMeIn after upgrading Safari?

Hi all,

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Before I did the upgrade to Safari, I was able to use LogMeIn with no problems. After the upgrade, I cannot get File Manager to work. Can't synchronize folders, copy files, or anything. It just hangs.

I know that LogMeIn uses Javascript, and I think that this is one of the things that was updated in Safari. Has anyone else experienced this? Can anyone recommend a fix/workaround? Thanks in advance to anyone who can help!

 

[carve]

When you hold down on the SHIFT key and press the minimize window in safari it keeps the whole window in a cube instead of scrunching it down and then minimizing it..just try it and you will see

 

[Yvan256]

When you hold down on the SHIFT key and press the minimize window in safari it keeps the whole window in a cube instead of scrunching it down and then minimizing it..just try it and you will see

If you are referring to the slow-motion effect, I see no problem here on my Mac mini, it minimizes the window via the genie effect as usual...

 

[mark88]

When I open a second window, the location is kinda messed up, it seems to sit like 20 pixels off the top.

 

[JeffDM]

...like looking at an old picture of yourself, when everyone was wearing stupid clothes.

Styles change. The stuff that's hot today usually looks stupid 10 years later. Stuff that looks smart today looks stupid in hindsight.

 

[JeffDM]

I think it's interesting, but it looks like the rotating box needs antialiasing to make it look good. Maybe that's still in progress, but it's just a detail that's necessary for that last bit of refinement.

 

[JeffDM]

"JUST as fast" sounds like it means "the same speed" to me!

So you are admitting with faster processors and bigger hard drives, and the biennial $2K expense (estimated "upgrade" frequency and cost over last 15 years), I am no better off than I was back in '93! Let's see, (15 years / 2) * $2K = $15K down, and I'm where I was network wise when I could be faster!

Spending that much that often is your choice, and computers are available for far cheaper now. Except for system death, most users shouldn't feel they have to replace your computer more than maybe every six years. My parents used a computer until it was nine years old, before replacing it with a three year old off-lease system bought for about $100 through my sister's employer. I buy more often than that, but I know it's my choice, nobody makes me. I certainly don't do it to make any part web use faster, that's a lot more a limitation of the broadband link.

 

[Nichod]

Sweet...
Now, all we only need is to wait for other browsers out there to catch up... someday...

Exactly. Thats the problem with this. Is the limitation of all the browsers not being at the same level. Someday that might be fixed. Until then!!

 

[cv01]

Localization could be better...

 

[72930]

Wonderful, more feature creep to slow down my surfing joy.

While every new feature of the web can be used for bad, the few times devs utilise them it can be fantastic. For example the wonderfully dynamic Panic website for Coda.

I tried Safari in the Acid3 test (acid3.acidtests.org) before and after upgrading. Safari 3.0 got a 40, and 3.1 got a 75! Not bad for a point release!

WebKit recently got an A+ with a score of 95.

 

[elppa]

And it's done, well done to the webkit team! First past the post I believe.

 

[xUKHCx]

And it's done, well done to the webkit team! First past the post I believe.

Opera said they got to 100 but was only an internal developer build and then the acid test was changed so they are back to 99. Although there are some questions about how some specific feature of webkit was implemented to get to 100. Although now it is added they will work on it to improve its implementation, so it is a bonus.

 

[Eraserhead]

Damn, the competition is tight between those two. I'm impressed they've done it though.

Now how many years will IE take to catch up .

Opera said they got to 100 but was only an internal developer build and then the acid test was changed so they are back to 99. Although there are some questions about how some specific feature of webkit was implemented to get to 100. Although now it is added they will work on it to improve its implementation, so it is a bonus.

I can believe it, Opera's beta from last October gets 60/100, which was probably better than Webkit at the time.

 

[72930]

And it's done, well done to the webkit team! First past the post I believe.

They're not finished yet, they still have LOADS of work to do smoothing the animation apparently.

I'm running Webkit nightly (and have been for the last week or so) and its pretty good, but has more website compatibility issues oddly than regular Safari.

 

[Eraserhead]

@psychofreak That's probably because website owners are assuming bugs in it. I have to admit it took a few tries to get it to get 100/100, first it only got 98, then 99 and finally 100, so clearly there's some work to do.

EDIT: I've uploaded the new version of Webkit to my collection of Acid3 screenshots.