As you can’t have failed to notice, Google released their Chrome browser today. Chrome is based on the same version of Webkit as Safari 3.1 so should in theory have the same level of CSS support, although based on the very brief usage I’ve had of it so far it seems that text-shadow and @font-face aren’t working.
Update: I should add, of course, that this is still Beta software, and these issues may well be fixed before launch.
Anyone else noticed any missing features?
Peter Gasston
I work as creative developer for a design and branding agency in London. I’m an advocate of open web standards and creative commons, and live in hope that CSS3 will address some of the limitations of the language (and become a recommendation in my lifetime!).
I blog on technical issues at Broken-Links.com, and my ambition is to one day stop agreeing to work on other people’s sites so I can concentrate on getting my own up to scratch.
Visit Authors Website | More Articles By Peter Gasston
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
36 Responses to “Google Chrome is available”
nor webkit-box-shadow, it displays them kinda weird.
it seems webkit-box-shadow works, it is when it is combined with -webkit-border-radius that it renders the corners poorly.
border-radius does not seem to be aliased and has a black background when used in conjunction with box-shadow.
Yes, I noticed that there is no stop button!
Good that escape key works :)
[...] Me ha llamado la atención que no haga zoom de página completa como Firefox 3 o Internet Explorer 7, por lo demás no le veo nada negativo salvo que tendremos que probar nuestras páginas en un navegador más. A pesar de estar basado en Webkit, el motor de renderización de Safari, las propiedades text-shadow, @font-face y alguna más, no funcionan en Google Chrome, como comentan en CSS3.info [...]
Emil Ivanov, there is a stop button. You just gotta look. ;)
I have also noticed that the PNG transparency is a bit rough around the edges. A good example is the social networking buttons below each post on my blog site: http://www.spoontwisted.com
But, for the record, this is only a Beta. Google is bound to fix these things before a final release.
Huh, yeah – now all internet world will talk about new war opening between Chrome and FF? :) I know what’s missing – great plugin database FireFox own :)
[...] Css3.info Chrome is based on the same version of Webkit as Safari 3.1 so should in theory have the same level of CSS support, although based on the very brief usage I’ve had of it so far it seems that text-shadow and @font-face aren’t working. [...]
The text doesn’t render as well. Not only is it not anti-aliased as much (which some people may rejoice), but like IE, it is difficult to tell when a word is bold or not. Probably due to the default text-rendering on Windows, which likes to squeeze each stroke down to the narrowest number of pixels in order to avoid the anti-aliasing. It also makes all fonts look alike unless you use huge letters.
I noticed the chunky corners of border radius right away. There is no anti-aliasing there at all. I can’t explain that one. The lack of text-shadow is pretty disappointing, but I suppose that is also related to the system-provided font rendering.
Firefox 3.1 does text-shadow fine on Windows, Google removed it for some other reason (which is odd, since they left box-shadow in)
But Chrome supports the CSS -webkit-transform and -webkit-transition-XXX
:)
Google Joins the Browser War…
Google launch their FLOSS (Free/Libre Open-Source Software) Browser called Google Chrome based on (FLOSS) WebKit, the same underlying layout engine of Safari 3.1. It is powered also by Google Gears and Google V8 (Google’s FLOSS JavaScript engine). W…
Google Chrome uses a several month old build of Webkit as it’s base. Some CSS3 and webkit-team-invented (is gradient even a css module?) stuff might not be in there. There’s also a known security issue and such.
When they update their webkit build, and I’m sure they will, you’ll be able to use your declarations that only you and 5% of the browser users see.
Aha: more info –> http://twitter.com/lensco/statuses/907814009
TheBuzzSaw,
Thanks I found it ;)
I agree Wolf, was able to confirm it as well. Apparently, Google Chrome 0.2 is using the WebKit version found in Safari 3.1.0.
The latest found in Safari 3.1.2 is not yet in Google Chrome 0.2.
I think that WebKit’s text-shadow is part of their font rendering engine that they ported from the Mac. FireFox does it in a different way. So, no font engine from Mac = no text shadow without extra effort.
WebKit has had text-shadow for longer than its had -webkit-transform and -webkit-transition. I also recall reading that Safari for Windows lets you choose a Window’s font-rendering if you preferred it, but that one of the side-effects was that you would lose text-shadows.
Wolf, I don’t think that explains why corner-radius is so blocky.
Oh, but your Twitter link does explain it, I think.
WebKit on GTK (at least) also has text-shadow, so it should have been abstracted away a while ago.
And box-shadow made it across.
Hey Peter,
I have also checked that Chrome is not supporting the CSS clip: rect(auto auto auto auto) property properly….
Like the style of the browser, but my website http://www.uipkes.nl didnt look that very good in it.
-webkit-box-shadow is fine, but as other mentioned when used with -webkir-border-radius you get black patches in the corner.
the only problem i’ve found with -webkit-box-shadow is if you have the blur amount set at 0px (ie a solid shadow) then no shadow renders.
by the way, this has been reported to google via http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1047&sort=-id&colspec=ID%20Pri%20Area%20Mstone%20Type%20Owner%20Status%20Summary%20Modified
as are all of the other issues people have posted
MaFt
“Whoa! Google Chrome has crashed. Restart now?”
I am wondering how the browser could crash, if all tabs are in different processes.
Yeah, I am wondering myself, but I know some who experienced that.
Had an experience myself, almost crashed. They claim that it will not lock-up all the other tabs and such, but blah, Chrome locked-up to me for a minute or so, then it was able to recover. Now that ‘recover’ thing is a rare thing in many Windows-based applications.
Only happened once tho. I’m using Core2Duo, 2gb RAM btw :p with only Chrome opened when that occurred.
Google products leave beta stage? Where? When? What?
When I login to my gmail acount I still see that beta sign on its logo. And how long has it been?
They won’t ever make it final/stable or whatever, cause they won’t be able to blame any mistakes on ‘beta phase’ anymore.
Beta. Still a long way to go.
Why doesn’t Chrome just use the Win32-based WebKit like everyone else, instead porting WebKit to a Google-specific API? They ought to have known that it would result in bugs, and problems upgrading to a newer WebKit.
This is totally great. The web development future looks bright. :D
there are so many advantages and features with Chrome, such as it’s speed, for example; now if only they would take care it’s quirky cookie management…
Yes Safari renders BOLD differently than IE – this I could live with.
What is insane is that Chrome does it like IE, not like Safari.
I don’t like the way Safari renders text at all. For normal weight text, it looks bold in Safari.
I haven’t tried Chrome yet but I have just installed it so I’ll see how it goes.
Gemma,
That’s because you are used to having Windows reduce the thickness of every stroke down to a single pixel. What you see in Safari is actually closer to what the designer of the typeface intended. The upside is that when text IS bold, it is a much more noticeable difference from non-bold.
Just installed Chrome. I like most of it, though it will have an uphill battle getting techno-illiterate users to sign on, due to the very different GUI.
Huge fan of the “sandboxed” tabs. Large fan of the speed.
Small quirks that will hopefully be fixed:
Zoom currently only works on text. I’m a graphic and web designer and I like to be able to pull out and see the whole thing.
(This is sort of an irrational want, but here we go). I’m a big fan of add-ons in Firefox (SteepandCheap.com, Chainlove.com, my RSS aggregate, etc.), so while the purpose of Chrome was to go no bells and whistles, I do sort of miss those.
That’s my initial assessment. I need to do more research into it’s web standards/CSS/compatability/etc.
[...] Some missing CSS3 support [...]
Leave a Reply