hckrnws
Props to the Safari team. They surprised us all when they suddenly shot to the top of interop-2025 this October
I didn't realize it was tracked like this, but I have noticed that as of iOS 26, Safari has gotten a huge number of great web features. It has WebGPU of course, but many small things like fixing up missing parts of the OPFS API that make it actually usable now. Now they even have the field-sizing CSS property [0], fixing imo the most glaring ommission from CSS: the inability to make text input boxes grow to fit the input text!
[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/P...
> They surprised us all when they suddenly shot to the top of interop-2025 this October
Not all of us were surprised; some of us have been watching the Safari team shipping the latest HTML and CSS features for a few years now.
Hm, I know that Safari doesn't support 64bit wasm, which is a very important feature that Chrome and Firefox both have, but this seems to say they have "100% webassembly support".
interop is a subset of tests chosen beforehand (nowadays, mostly by devs voting in the github issues). This says Safari has reached 100% on the subset of tests agreed upon for interop-25. Those specific tests can be expanded by clicking it in the menu. It'll take you here:
https://wpt.fyi/results/wasm/jsapi?label=experimental&label=...
The full test-suite of wasm tests are here:
Fascinating tracker. So we started 2025 with nearly every browser under 80% and ending the year with every browser with >98% interop? That's a lot of amazing work done by a lot of teams. Incredible!
Just to clarify the meaning of the measurement, it doesn't mean they're 98% interoperable across everything, it's across the specific set of goals for 2025. (Which is still really good!)
I think they realized that shipping the features out of sync meant nobody could use them until all browsers adopted them, which took years, so now they coordinate
All of the above and even more so to have those features behave identically across the member browsers.
This seems like a bit of a trend with Safari. Around big releases Apple will announce how Safari is the best at X, but other times of the year it gets a lot of flack. I assume this is due to Safari’s more traditional release schedule vs other browsers continuously shipping feature updates.
Safari has been releasing a lot more often than it used to. My personal gripe with Safari is how they decided to deal with extensions, forcing every developer through their hellish App Store submission experience.
Cool stuff they're working on tends to take a very long time to reach customers' hands compared to other browsers. Just compare the "stable" and "experimental" graphs on wpt.fyi for Safari.
I can't think of a single good reason why they don't adopt an "evergreen" 4/6-week update model except Not Invented Here syndrome or "it's not Apple-like, we prefer the OS team (and therefore Marketing) dictating our release schedule, users be damned".
It's an own-goal for no reason.
The web platform doesn’t need to move this fast. Google is, often unilaterally, pushing new features and declaring them standards. In my opinion, the web should not be changing so fast that a truly open source community project couldn’t keep up. I don’t like how the web has become reliant on the largesse of billion dollar corporations.
I recognise that this is a controversial take, but in my opinion what Google is doing is a variant of “embrace and extend”. Traditionally, this meant proprietary extensions (e.g. VBScript) but I think this a subtle variant with similar consequences.
I know it's fashionable to forcefully shove the same pet peeves about Chromium into any topic even loosely related, but here I'm talking about Safari webcompat fixes, bug fixes, and improvements having very long delays between being written and landing in customers' hands. I would make the same argument if Chrome never existed. Thank you for presenting the 10,001st reissue of this "controversial take".
VBScript is a word I hadn't heard in quite a while! Brings back memories of editing 5k line .asp files to find an if statement and then a 1000 lines of html and such. Sadly, I dont' think web development is actual better 20+ years later, just different...
This is not all that surprising. While the Chrome team is out there evangelising things like WebPCIe or whatever, Safari's been shipping features clients actually want, like blurred backgrounds for years before anyone else.
Imagine if the literal army of Chromium/Blink engineers threw their entire weight into making the fundamental building blocks that everybody uses better instead of niche things that only a tiny fraction sites and web apps will ever need.
I wonder if Ladybird has explored running these interop tests yet. Or maybe these are just a subset of WPT?
You can edit the "products" represented in the table and add "Ladybird" to the list. [1]
Their result is: 1974740 / 2152733 (91%)
They also have their own dashboards tracking this [2]
[1] https://wpt.fyi/results/?product=ladybird
[2] https://grafana.app.ladybird.org/public-dashboards/2365098a1...
I hope they add WebTransport support soon.
voting for interop 2026 is active now. I see somebody has already submitted a proposal for it
This is exciting to see! I just used Masonry for a project this past week. While it works quite well and is pretty performant, it is pretty hacky using absolute positioning, wanting to know the aspect ratios of objects beforehand for smoother layout, and having to recalculate everything on resize. I'm looking forward to having a generally available native option one of these days.
Me, too. I like masonry layout too much to wait for CSS to solve the problem, so I've been waiting to remove the last 1.3KB of Javascript from my home page since 2019.
Thank you to everyone who is making this happen.
I wish they'd release CSS Gap Decorations: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/gap-decorations
I'm tired of having to use stupid hacks to get nice-looking borders between flex/grid items.
I always thought that the masonry layout looked good but made it harder to get a good overview of the images.
The biggest problem is that it's good if your images are all landscape or all portrait, but not when mixed.
The whole point of a masonry layout is if you have different aspect ratios. Otherwise a masonry layout is just a normal grid.
Masonry layout fixes one of the dimensions. That means either portrait or landscape images will look visibly smaller than those of the inverse aspect ratio, because their longer side must be the same length as the latter’s shorter side.
Masonry works well if you have different aspect ratios of the same orientation.
What?
The defining feature of masonry is that it supports mixed aspect ratios. That's its whole thing. If you aren't mixing landscape and portrait images, you shouldn't be using masonry layout.
Masonry layout fixes one of the dimensions. That means either portrait or landscape images will look visibly smaller (less detailed, more ignorable, etc) than those of the inverse aspect ratio, because their longer side must be the same length as the latter’s shorter side. This has real UX consequences. What masonry works best with is images of different aspect ratios but the same orientation.
Pointing out that masonry isn't as good with mixed-orientation content as it is with uniform-orientation content is all well and good, but we still need a way to display mixed orientation content. What alternatives to masonry do you propose?
- If you stretch all images into a uniform aspect ratio, they get all squashed and look terrible.
- If you crop all images into a uniform aspect ratio, you lose potentially the majority of the content in some images.
- If you display all images at their natural aspect ratio and their full size, there will be huge swathes of empty space in between them because they don't pack tightly.
Masonry layouts allow you to preserve aspect ratio without wasting a massive portion of your user's screen space. It's not perfect, but it's the best layout mixed-orientation content that I know of.
If you know of a better method to handle mixed orientations, I'd love to hear it and would gladly rescind by remarks.
Well I think this is a great step forward but it would be great if we could mix aspect ratios even better...
Consider a similar layout to OP but the landscape images will span multiple columns as well as everything it already does.
The thing about masonry is that it adapts to the size of the images. You could already do masonry using flexbox if you know the image sizes (https://github.com/hannasm/masonflexjs). Doing it as a true mosaic layout would be a step above current capabilities. At that point it's probably pretty easy to create configurations that don't fit perfectly/ require lots of empty space to layout nicely though.
Kind of random but why, in the linked repo, are you using dotnet core for minifying a Javascript file? I'm just curious. It seems like overkill to me.
Very cool! I wonder, will it be easy to build interactive interfaces on this primitive, like animations and drag-and-drop?
I have to ask, like with all the other browser specific trial implementations: how is cross platform support? If we wanted to make a grid layout that only worked in one browser engine, grid-template-rows: masonry was there for a while now.
Chromium still seems to be working on support it seems based on https://cr-status.appspot.com/feature/5149560434589696 so maybe it'll be useful soon? That page indicates that they're still discussing certain parts of the spec.
It's been on-and-off in all three browsers behind flags etc, but it's been in a constant state of flux over the last three years. One of the most gnarly new CSS features to get right. Lots of great arguments about how to implement it.
I've been using Chromium's display: masonry in some internal apps since they introduced it behind a flag in Chromium 140. Looks like they just have to rename it now?
I have too. And the Safari version that was in the betas/tech previews.
One of the biggest arguments over the last couple of years was what to call it. A lot, lot of ideas put forth as alternatives to "masonry" which wasn't thought to be great for non-English speakers. I'm glad they finally nailed a name for it!
The other big argument was over how to activate it. Is it a grid? Is it a flexbox? Is it a brand new animal?
Now I just need to figure out the best way to implement this semantically with a polyfill for the next 30 months until it's baseline.
I actually started using Safari's `grid-template-rows: masonry` when it came out, but unfortunately Safari TP crashed a lot on me when using that for some reason. Chromium's never had a problem.
how does it work with animations? like if i transition:all and then remove a middle img does the other elements get animated?
I guess wire up a codepen demo and try it out. I know the guys writing this were well aware of all the edge cases like that and these are some of the absolute smartest CSS people you can think of who had to write the very detailed spec for this.
I don't think the smooth reflow made it into the current spec, so I guess watch this space?
I have often thought layouts should be done by a constraint solver. Then there could be libraries that help simplify specifying a layout, which feed constraints to the solver.
I've done that for desktop apps before. You have to be careful with the effects of sub-pixel rendering and whatnot if your math is continuous, but it's a viable path that I quite like.
Recently discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46144039
I've run the masonry layout (for my personal bookmark website) ever since I've found it in the browser settings.
grid-template-rows: masonry;
is going to be outdated then?
Yeah, there was a years long debate that effectively ended with: “We held a vote that you weren’t aware of and decided that masonry was out. If you cared, you should have participated in the vote that you were not aware was happening. It’s too late to change it.”
Wasn't Firefox the only browser that actually implemented `grid-template-rows: masonry` anyways?
It sucks whenever browsers backtrack on a W3C standard that reached "Working Draft" status but it doesn't seem like it's gonna impact many people
Besides, it's not being "deprecated". It will continue to work as it does. We just have a better alternative that the big 3 all agreed on.
Masonry was never “in”, no? Mozilla proposed it and were the only ones to implement it, behind a feature flag. Then WebKit proposed an alternative that was discussed at length:
People have been dragging their feet on subgrid, masonry, etc for almost a decade. I followed it pretty closely for years but stopped when it started turning into a Christopher Guest mockumentary.
Masonry or grid-lanes, who cares? I’m just glad masonry (the feature, Baseline 20XX) and subgrid (Baseline 2023) are finally here.
I still prefer the layout look from something like justifiedGallery.js where the heights of each row are the same. Actual masonry with stacking stones would never stack directly on top of each other like this. Calling it masonry just feels unnatural as anything stacked like that would easily be knocked over. "Lanes" is definitely more appropriately named than "masonry". The layout look of a justifiedGallery would be more masonry than the grid-template-rows:masonry setting. yeah yeah, raw css vs js library blah blah
What you’re looking for is described in the article as “bricks” (vs “waterfall”) and is also supported.
How would you query the location where you need to load more data when scrolling down (the highest empty spot)?
I guess you can just start loading a first batch, add an intersection observer to the last 3 elements (if you have 3 lanes) and then when one of those intersects you simply start fetching the next.
I suppose just checking scroll height of the container? Once you're x pixels above the bottom, fetch more. Not the smoothest, but doable
You just append new <figure> elements to the <main> in the example and it will automatically put them in the appropriate column.
Your answer doesn't appear to relate to what I asked. You need to know when to query the backend for more data if it's an infinite scrolling setup.
Aahh. The way you phrased your question was pretty ambiguous.
The other posters have good answers. One thing to consider for a smooth interaction would be to eagerly load the next x elements before they scroll into view.
Yeah I’d assume you’d eagerly load enough to make sure everything gets at least partially into the viewport, and maybe a fee more to optimize for network latency. And then perhaps track elements whose trailing ends are not in the viewport, and load more once those become fully visible?
If I ever encounter, and need to read a webpage with arbitrarily sized and placed grids of text, please somebody just shoot me. https://webkit.org/wp-content/uploads/Grid-Lanes-newspaper-d...
I think this looks great too. Finally replicating the efficiency of newspaper layouts. No enforced symmetry, just content in an optimal space. I want.
Comment was deleted :(
Funny, I think that looks gorgeous!
what's your problem?
Maybe this will be an unpopular opinion, but I really dislike the lane layout, because it is not possible to efficiently take a glance at all elements in the list, one by one.
If you try to go left-to-right, you will quickly realize that at the end of each "line" it is really difficult to know where the next line starts. It is easy to accidentally start again on the same line (and inspect the same elements), or skip one accidentally. Then navigating through the elements one by one requires a considerable amount of cognitive effort, your eyes bounce up and down constantly, and you end up inspecting the same elements multiple times.
If you try to go top-to-bottom, lane by lane, you will then realize that the page also has infinite scroll and you will never go past the first lane.
But if you don't need to systematically examine every element one-by-one, lane layouts are pretty good. Sites like Pintrest use lane layouts because their content isn't meant to by systematically examined, but rather absorbed at a glance. If your content is meant to be systematically examined, using a lane layout would be a bad UX choice. But just because lane layouts can be misused doesn't mean they're a bad layout.
I think it's one of those things that looks good, but is annoying to use non-superficially.
IMO it's annoying to use at all. It just looks "good" (subjective).
Larger images dominate and flashy images become more important to get attention (if bringing focus to an image is the idea). An extremely poor way to present information.
Thankfully the feature is just in time for it to fall out of fashion! It really is an awful layout, UX wise. But at least it looks pretty at a glance!
Feels very "right-brain". I'm a brain-hemisphere equality advocate. Good for sites like Pinterest. But also Home Assistant.
Masonry grid layout was one of a few interviewing pair programming tests I would give to frontend engineers. I need to see how this works under the hood!
sweeeeeeeeeeeet
Comment was deleted :(
Is anyone working on actual css problems instead of this sugar syntax?
Hypermedia suffers because these marketing companies waste time on making sure they can build Pinterest in 10 LoC instead of fixing actual long running hypermedia domains.
Moving this sort of stuff out of JavaScript and arcane hacks allows the browser rendering engines to optimize these common patterns. This is sorta the opposite of syntactic sugar. The syntactic sugar is the libraries that implemented these patterns without rendering support.
Shall we call it syntactic umami perhaps? Or syntactic lipids?
Oh, how cool! Another barrier to a new browser gaining user base!
I don't understand all the busywork goes behind new browser updates, just to retain their market share (since they can afford more engineers, than say Ladybird). Is this needed? It's not rocket science, folks.
All these CSS upgrades have been meant to reduce the need for Javascript for all the things web devs do out there in the real world. It's a good thing.
You should tune out more of the ambient cynicism because it's ignorant and unhinged. People who don't follow any standards discussions, don't talk to web devs, don't read anything except headlines and who are only imitating the attitudes of whatever cynical, depressed social media bubble they fell into.
Psh, rocket science only has to contend with physics, which generally doesn't change much, if at all. The equations used to get humans to the moon didn't change because someone discovered you can send a specially crafted packet and escape the sandbox and steal money from everybody on the Internet.
Is this increasing complexity in the Web layout world worth it? Anyone who wants to use this is going to drop support for older browsers (and, in so doing, older machines that can't run newer OSes and newer browsers).
Personally, I use an 11-year-old machine and have had to add userscript hacks to certain major Web sites to work around bugs in CSS grid (not the "lanes" described here).
At least new JavaScript features can be "polyfilled" or whatever. Maybe sites could check for CSS feature support too? But they seem not to.
For example, the demo page linked in the article fails pretty unusably for me. All the images take up nearly the full viewport width.
I am using a machine older than eleven years old and can still run the newest version of Firefox and Chrome.
I don't think the world needs to cater to people that refuse even basic internet hygiene.
I routinely use an 11 year old computer too. I can not see why "userscript hacks" would be needed.
> I use an 11-year-old machine
What OS are you running that can't run modern versions of browsers, and on what hardware?
Current Chrome runs on Windows 10, which came out 9.5 years ago but was intended to run on older computers, and macOS Monterey, which runs on Macs from ~2014-2015 depending on the model. But even Big Sur before that, the most recent version of Chrome which runs on that is Chrome 138 from just 6 months ago, and that doesn't seem old enough that you need to build userscript hacks.
I'm really curious what you're actually running. Generally speaking, an 11-year-old desktop should be able to run the current browser, and if not, a very recent one.
> Personally, I use an 11-year-old machine and have had to add userscript hacks to certain major Web sites to work around bugs in CSS grid (not the "lanes" described here).
The version of CSS Grid we're using today didn't ship until 2017; a browser from 11 years ago would be using one of the non-standard versions of Grid. For example, Internet Explorer 11 was the first browser to ship a grid implementation.
> At least new JavaScript features can be "polyfilled" or whatever. Maybe sites could check for CSS feature support too?
First, not every site needs to look exactly the same in every browser; that's why progressive enhancement is a thing.
Second, there are multiple ways to create masonry-style layouts that don't require masonry support in the browser using multi-column layout or flexbox.
Third, masonry can be polyfilled using JavaScript [1].
When the web came out it itself was new technology that excluded some older machines. Lynx kind of worked (I used it!) but it was a poor substitute, especially once `<img>` showed up.
You want to platform to be able to make progress and not be frozen in amber by what we had at some "magical" year when things were in some Golidlocks powerful enough but not too complex state. Especially since a lot of progress lately has been fixing long-standing inconsistencies and obvious gaps.
The cost of that is that yes, neither my Apple IIe or my Micro Pentium 90 run the modern web... one day my MBP M1 won't either.
[dead]
> Is this increasing complexity in the Web layout world worth it? Anyone who wants to use this is going to drop support for older browsers (and, in so doing, older machines that can't run newer OSes and newer browsers).
If you’ve been at this for a while, it’s important to remember that browsers update a lot faster than they used to. Anchor positioning came out last year, for example, and all of the major browsers support it by now. Very old devices are a problem but security is purging those out faster than used to be the case.
We also have better tools for progressive adoption since you can easily query for things like CSS feature support. In this demo, they didn’t implement fallbacks but in most real sites you’d have something like a basic grid layout which is perfectly serviceable for the fraction of users on old Firefox releases.
> Maybe sites could check for CSS feature support too? But they seem not to.
Certainly can: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/A...
Not updating your browser will net you tons of exploitable vulnerabilities.
How do you expect things to ever change if no one ever updates? Certainly even if you decide to lean towards maximum support it’s still a positive these features are being introduced so you can use them in 10 years.
> How do you expect things to ever change if no one ever updates?
Maybe things should stop changing.
We don't really need ten new CSS attributes every year. Things work. The elegant solution is to announce the project is done. That would bring some much-needed stability. Then we can focus on keeping things working.
The issue with this is that the browser is the cross-playing operating system, the VM that runs webapps. But we treat the platform like an evolving document format. If we want to declare it complete, we need to make it extensible so we can have a stable core without freezing capabilities. I foresee all of this CSS/HTML stuff as eventually being declared a sort of legacy format and adding a standard way to ship pluggable rendering engines/language runtimes. WASM is one step in that direction. There are custom rendering/layout engines now, but they basically have to render to canvas and lose a lot of performance and platform integration. Proper official support for such engines with hooks into accessibility features and the like could close that gap. Of course, then you have every website shipping a while OS userland for every pageload, kinda like containers on servers, but that overhead could probably be mitigated with some caching of tagged dependencies. Then you have unscrupulous types who might use load timings to detect cache state for user profiling... I'm sure there's a better solution for that than just disabling cross-site caching...
I digress.
> I foresee all of this CSS/HTML stuff as eventually being declared a sort of legacy format and adding a standard way to ship pluggable rendering engines/language runtimes.
I doubt this is going to happen as long as backwards compatibility continues to be W3C's north star. That's why all current browsers can still render the first website created by TBL in 1989.
Sure, official support for certain extensions should happen but HTML/CSS will always be at the core.
> Maybe things should stop changing.
There are two kinds of technologies: those that change to meet user needs, and those that have decided to start dying and being replaced by technologies that change to meet user needs.
11 years ago we had Python 2.7.8 and 3.4.0 so no type hints, no async await, no match syntax, no formatted string literals, large number couldn’t be written like this 13_370_000_000, etc.
Developers deserve nice things.
> Developers deserve nice things.
I agree they do. But Python is a bad counterexample. You can upgrade your Python on your server and no one has to know about it. But if you want to use new CSS features, then every browser has to implement that feature and every user has to upgrade their browser.
The intent of my comment was to express a desire to stabilize the web API in particular, not to freeze all software development in its tracks.
But people ship python software, just like they ship CSS software, and python is bundled in many operating systems. When somebody ships e.g. a CLI tool to manipulate subtitle files, and it uses a language feature from python 3.9, that somebody is excluding you from running it on your 11 year old system.
People get new browser versions for free, there are more important things to thing about than users that for some reason don‘t want to upgrade. Like I would rather have my layout done quickly with nice elegant code (and no hacks) and spend my extra time developing an excellent UX for my users that rely on assistive technology.
Note that your wish for stabilization was delivered by the CSSWG with the @supports rule. Now developers can use new features without breaking things for users on older browser. So if a developer wants to use `display: grid-lanes` they can put it in an @supports clause. However if you are running firefox 45 (released in May 2016; used by 0.09% of the global users) @supports will not work and my site will not work on your browser. I—and most developers—usually don’t put things in an @support clause that passes "last 2 version, not dead, > 0.2%"
> Is this increasing complexity in the Web layout world worth it?
Yes. I held off learning about CSS Grid for a very long time and as soon as I did I was converted. Sometimes I think the web doesn’t get enough credit for its ambition: mobile viewports, desktop viewports, touch interaction, pointer interaction, complex documents, webapps… it’s a lot. But you get some complexity as a side effect. The complexity we do see these days isn’t invented out of whole cloth, it’s standardising and improving layouts people are implementing with JavaScript, often badly.
What does the age of your machine have to do with browser compatibility issues? Are you running a stale OS and a stale browser on that OS?
Sooner or later, the age of your machine will affect browser compatibility.
It doesn't even take many things to do this — the knock-on support of a bug in a driver that no-one wants to fix, a package that you like that prevents you from upgrading your host OS, web browser developers abandoning something about your GUI (how long before they drop X?) etc.
In the Linux world, the age of your machine is a limit with a blurry edge, but it's still there.
If enough consumers aren't able to use the website, then business wouldn't use it. The reality is new computers aren't that expensive (I see used M1s for under 1k) and consumers are upgrading.
You mentioned a used model that is over 5 years old as an example of "a new computer", and "1k" as "not expensive for consumers". It is honestly impressive how well you undermined your own point.
> If enough consumers aren't able to use the website, then business wouldn't use it.
I sincerely doubt any business owner would approve of losing even 10% of their potential users/customers if they knew that was the trade-off for their web developer choosing to use this feature, but there are disconnects in communication about these kinds of things -- if the web developer even knows about compatibility issues themselves, which you would expect from any competent web developer, but there are a whole lot of incompetent web developers in the wild who won't even think about things like this.
Most web devs get screemed at (by their peer reviewers or [preferably] static analysis tools) if they use a feature which has less then like 98% support without gracefully denigrating it, and rightfully so.
But your GP is in a massive minority, if every developer would cater to 11 year old browsers we would be wasting a lot of developer time to inferior designs, with more hacks which brake the web for even more users.
I don't know about "most". For various reasons, I use a 2-year-old browser on a daily basis (alongside an up-to-date browser), and I routinely run into websites that are completely broken on the 2-year-old browser. Unrelated to outdatedness, I recently ran into a local government website that e-mailed me my password in plaintext upon account creation. I have no way of accurately quantifying whether "most" web developers fall into the competent or incompetent bucket, but regardless of which there are more of, there are a significant enough number of incompetent ones.
I think a very common browserlist target is "last 2 version, not dead, > 0.2%". So if you have a 2-year old browser you are probably dozens of versions behind and are very likely in that 2% of users which developers simply ignore.
Going back 2 versions, only ~50% of Chrome users are on v140 or newer. If you go back another 2 versions, that number increases to around ~66%. Going back another 2 versions only increases that to 68%, with no huge gains from each further 2 step jump. That you think your target gives you 98% coverage is concerning for the state of web developers, to say the least.
After checking further, almost 20% of Chrome users are on a 2+ year old version. If you handle that gracefully by polyfilling etc., fine. If you "simply ignore" and shut out 20% of users (or 50% of users per your own admission of support target), as I have encountered in the wild countless times, you are actively detrimental to your business and would probably be fired if the people in charge of your salary knew what you were doing, especially since these new browser features are very rarely mission-critical.
Yes it is. Developers write bad code when they try to work around the lack of features with ill thought out hacks, this results in a bad website for everybody, even those of us that keep our software up to date, and just so happen to have a different screen resolution and a different browser then what the developer tested on.
Crafted by Rajat
Source Code