This is dumb. This is awesome: http://ukijs.org/mail/index.html

It's neat, but I really expected some kind of iframe, so you could browse inside it.

And of course the first page I'd visit with it would be itself. And again. And again.

I opened it up in Chrome first. I'd have lost my mind if Firefox was running in an iFrame. :)

Firefox can do that as well:

chrome://browser/content/browser.xul

Ok... that is cheating...

For anyone intrigued: http://grab.by/4wnv

From about a year ago: http://i.imgur.com/AzdGC.jpg

Yes, this is completely pointless.

It would have been nice if they didn't use so many -webkit- properties (I counted 34) so that other browsers could at least have a shot at rendering it. Several properties they use are supported by Opera if given the chance.

It's hardly "built entirely with valid HTML5 and CSS3" if they're using proprietary -webkit- properties rather than CSS3 properties.

sice CSS3 is still a work in progress browsers implement upcomig features using -webkit/-o/-moz there's nothing wrong with it (as long than you don't use the non-valid ie's filter crap)

If you take a look here: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work you can clearly see that pretty much everything is in Working Draft state so isn't really stable

It may be valid according to the wording, but denying supported features to all but one rendering engine is certainly not compatible with the spirit of any web standard.

Looks awful on the iPad. I guess Safari Mobile still has some catching up to do with its desktop sibling.

Looks awful on chrome too.

Perfect on Chrome 5.0.375.38 beta Mac.

In the real (physical) world (you remember, that infinitely large thing outside of your computer), this is simply called a "mirror".

It's not producing something, it's looking itself in the mirror: attention: vanity is waiting!

Is the background also image-free? That seems much more impressive to me than the browser window (and the browser window is pretty impressive.)

It's not image free, but it would technically be possible with CSS only (except for the kind of glow effect) albeit a nightmare to try.

the colors of the close, minimize and expand aren't correct, so not entirely accurate. Still awesome

They're correct if you have your appearance settings set to Graphite instead of Blue.

Yo dawg, I heard you like the internet, so we put a browser in your browser so you can meme while you meme

Why is this so proud of using HTML5/CSS3 and no images, when the site General Metrics seems to imply that they value Photoshop over non-PS methods.

// We help design agencies build websites and web applications.

if ( Photoshop > (TextMate || Coda) ) { contactUs (”email”); }

I read it as: if you prefer to use photoshop (i.e. you are a graphics designer that wants to just send a mock-up and have it implemented) you should contact them.

I think it's just their way of saying they're looking to hire a graphic designer as opposed to programmers, not their design philosophy.

The joke is that (TextMate || Coda) as any OR operation, returns either 0 or 1, so if Photoshop is >=2 then that if condition is always true, regardless of the value of TextMate and Coda.