About CSS corners
blogs.msdn.com
blogs.msdn.com
then ill be impressed about improving an edge case on a feature other people implemented 5 years ago.
If IE does something better than everyone else, no biggie - they'll catch up quickly. Meanwhile, IE is actually aware that they have to compete on standards. That's a wonderful thing to see.
Of course, without Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and others kicking their butts, Microsoft would never have done any of this. Competition helps the user. And now maybe it will flow the other direction a little.
Debunking IE marketing claims competitively could be the new Acid3 test when it comes to getting browser programmers excited about fixing bugs in obscure corners of the specs.
Beyond those questions, some of the tactics and strategies used by competitive companies don't lead to better lives. For example, if VHS had never been in competition with BetaMax, our lives would be better because Betamax is better than VHS. Perhaps if there was less competition, many of the startups that are put out of business every day would survive longer and provide even more better life. Sometimes competition destroys the best alternative.
Little things like that make me wonder about our conviction that competition is better.
Further still, imagine if all the energy spent competing was spent collaborating! Imagine if we all focused on a better life, rather than two separate teams focusing on two separate paths to that better life. Mozilla team + Chrome team could be a better scenario than Mozilla team vs. Chrome team.
So, my point is, It's not really that clear cut that competition makes our lives better. Another example, in many countries around the world with single payer health care systems, the people live longer, have lower infant mortality, and disease than in the U.S. where there is competition for health care provision and insurance.
So I'd like to see some evidence for the claim that competition makes lives better and products better. And, even if they do, does it matter that those products have become better? Does the fact that our lives will be better 10 years from now mean we can't be happy today? Should we not focus on being happy with what we have? If competition weren't the status quo, maybe there would be something existing right now to make our lives better than our lives currently are, but we simply don't know about it. It's not here. It doesn't exist. If it did exist, perhaps our lives would be better, but we only believe they are better because we can compare our lives with this thing existing with our lives when it didn't exist.
Would our lives be better if we could colonize mars? Would we have been able to colonize mars if we had worked with the Russians during the cold war? How much more progress would have been made if we had collaborated? Instead, competition has led to nuclear proliferation -- is that a good thing?
If there were only one browser, my life would be better. I wouldn't have to develop for four... wait, five browsers. I'd be able to spend more time focusing on the features and requirements of the system, rather than IE showing a div a little higher or than Firefox. Or Chrome throwing an error on an Ajax call. Or adding IF statements to handle key presses.
Take it to the logical extreme. What if there were 20 browsers each with 5% market share? Would life be even better still?
But, in the larger view, competition is what made anyone invent Betamax at all. Or flat panel TVs instead of CRTs or cell phones instead of telegraphs.
Browser makers do cooperate. They work together on web standards. Two major ones share the same open source rendering engine.
Betamax was not "better" than VHS. It was better in image quality, but it was inferior in the length of material that could be put on a single cassette. Consumers voted with their wallets, and decided length was more important than video quality.
Nyuck nyuck nyuck.
This aims to be a future implementation (when IE9 is released) and by that time other browsers will catch up with this implementation.
Isn't this just FUD?
Microsoft always produces great software when they are the runner ups.
This kind of wording continues to perpetuate that vendor prefixes are bad. Opera should only have implemented the property without the vendor prefix (although, technically, there's no such thing as a "property without the vendor prefix" and "a property with the vendor prefix", they are really two different properties with, by design, potentially different implementations) if it conforms to the agreed upon standard (I don't know if it does, Opera is good about that, so I assume it does). I don't expect anyone else to provide a bare border-radius property that doesn't conform to the standard, if they can't conform to the standard, they should be using vendor prefixes.
You know what we haven't seen enough of is vendor prefixed property names that provide different implementations so that developers and designers can try out different things in the same browser as a way to move towards a standard. -moz-foobar-a and -moz-foobar-b could be two implementations of the same property, that perhaps render differently based on an ambiguity in the proposal and which one gets picked for the foobar property is based on actual in-the-wild-use based on developer needs.