ActiveX in Linux browsers 6621

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 18:36:16 -0600, Lin¿nut

And I responded that it was the same as blink. To which it was responded that Canvas isn't an attempt to monopolize the market, to which I responded that blink was NETSCAPE's.

Try to keep up.

If you want to release a BETA version, or a "proof of concept" version of a non-standard function, fine. But to releases a non-finished version as a production copy of Firefox is just irresponsible.

According to the WHATWG specifications page, Web Applications 1.0 (the specification that defines canvas) is "in active development. Expect to see big changes in the coming days and weeks."

I've also got the same complaint about implementing CSS3 features in production browsers before they're finalized. Standards that are in development CHANGE. Sometimes they change a lot, even after you though they wouldn't. As an example, CSS2.1 was at the Candidate Recommendation stage, and then suddenly dropped back to Working draft because some major changes needed to be made.

Finally, Canvas was sent to standardization AFTER THE FACT. Read Hixie's comments on this:

He also explains why canvas, as currently being implemented, can't conform to the existing standards.

Open source or not, it's simply wrong to implement non-standard features in a production browser, especially one that has a significant market share. If you want to implement them in prototypes, or research projects, fine. But releasing them in production browsers gives sites incentive to USE those non-standard features, and if they never BECOME standards, you have created yet another proprietary mess.