So the IE6 comparison is definitely the right way to sting developers into action. Nobody wants to end up being That Guy from 2001 again.
There's a few differences though. IE6 did a few things better (their box-sizing model is still more sane than the standard, box heights were nicer if unpredictable). But many things it just did differently, for no very sensible reason.
Mobile Safari isn't like that -- it's pretty damn standards compliant (tried a second ago, it passes most but not all of ACID2). That means anything you write that is completely standards-compliant will work, without modification, on any other similarly compliant browser, mobile or otherwise.
What is does do is a bunch of mobile-specific enhancement -- the viewport sizing, css gradients, etc. are all highly useful for the unusual constraints of mobile web development.
So, as PPK suggests, build the website in another browser first. Then enhance it for Safari using their extensions -- not the other way around.
There's a few differences though. IE6 did a few things better (their box-sizing model is still more sane than the standard, box heights were nicer if unpredictable). But many things it just did differently, for no very sensible reason.
Mobile Safari isn't like that -- it's pretty damn standards compliant (tried a second ago, it passes most but not all of ACID2). That means anything you write that is completely standards-compliant will work, without modification, on any other similarly compliant browser, mobile or otherwise.
What is does do is a bunch of mobile-specific enhancement -- the viewport sizing, css gradients, etc. are all highly useful for the unusual constraints of mobile web development.
So, as PPK suggests, build the website in another browser first. Then enhance it for Safari using their extensions -- not the other way around.