So let's read again the pop-up message

You’ll need to download Safari to view this demo. This demo was designed with the latest web standards supported by Safari. If you’d like to experience this demo, simply download Safari. It’s free for Mac and PC, and it only takes a few minutes.

As you see, it doesn't mention that MY BROWSER doesn't support the latest web standards. It simply says, that Safari supports web standards and that if you want to check the demo, download Safari. If you don't want to download Safari, you won't see the demo.

The Message is clear.

Except I don't need to download Safari to view all the demos - most of them work fine in Chrome if you run them from here: http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/

Not from the "public" page though. If I click on the typography demo I get the message that I MUST download Safari, even though we can see that that demo runs fine in Chrome.

OK, so it's an advert, but it's a misleading one.

How come it's misleading? It didn't say Chrome can't run the demos. It just said if you want to see my demos (or my products) you have to install my browser. If you don't want to download and install it, don't see the demos. Not really strange for me, I'm used now to the Apple attitude.

It says you need to download safari to see the demos. This is not true - I can view them fine from another page on apple's site using Chrome. That seems misleading to me?

thats my point - the message is not clear, it's misleading

I think a lot of people around here have bad memories from the last time it was acceptable to put "best viewed with <some browser>" on a web site.

Using Chrome in Windows I can't even click through to the examples - I get a blocking pop-up telling me to get Safari. Doesn't that, coupled with the line "soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards" imply that other browsers are lagging behind so badly they can't even try to run the examples? That seems misleading to me. The standards are not complete, but they are more widely supported than this page seems to suggest.

Contrast with Chrome's Experiments (http://www.chromeexperiments.com/) that you can try on any browser and see how it copes.

Edit: lots of the demos work perfectly well in Chrome if run from here instead: http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/

> The page talks about emerging web standards and talks about Safari and Apple's support for them.

It doesn't say 'emerging'. It says 'reliable'.

> It mentions that not all browsers support all of the latest standards, and then it gives examples of some of the latest standards that Safari supports.

Except that it doesn't. (a) because the specs are still in draft, and (b) because independent tests show Safari's support to be impressive but nowhere near complete.

http://www.freeciv.net/yet-another-html5-browser-test/

A poignant example is all of the non-standard -webkit CSS extensions Apple uses for the Gallery demo (http://www.apple.com/html5/showcase/gallery/):

   #gallery-demo .grid2d figure:nth-child(5)  { -webkit-transform: translateX(-241px) translateY(-3px) scale(.45) translateZ(1000px);}

If you accept -webkit CSS extensions as a standard, then Internet Explorer has supported the CSS opacity attribute for years:

   filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(Opacity=80);

These extensions are not part of the CSS3 or HTML5 spec.

Actually, transform is in the CSS3 working spec[0]. Until the standard reaches the "Candidate Recommendation" stage, the W3C encourages browser vendors to use prefixes (-webkit, -moz, etc).

DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha, on the other hand, wouldn't be part of CSS3, and uses its own specific syntax.

[0]: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-3d-transforms/#transform-property

Is there any technical reason why using webkit's browser specific css attribute and firefox's browser specific css attribute is any better than using IE's browser specific css attribute?

`filter:` syntax isn't compatible with CSS tokenizer (IE<8 is unparseable without special tokenizer state set by the parser, IE8 uses non-CSS syntax in CSS string).

IE's transform filter uses only matrix, which scares the hell out of designers.

It's no standard because apple developers extended Webkit with some additional tags but noone else. That's what makes it so sad. Even more sad is that they misuse the words HTML, CSS3, JS and standard to convince you of the oh-so-open world of Apple. MS did that for years and every web developer pays for that today. But somehow now it's ok.. You don't see how having to install Safari for Apples vision of the internet is the same vision that MS had when building their crappy extensions to the standard?

You may want to check out the great comment by alanh here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1403749

This explains how vendor prefixes fit into the standards process.