5 ms·

First: it's not "propriertary CSS" it is called "vendor extensions" and are allowed in CSS. Second, and more important: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-text/ http:/

First: it's not "propriertary CSS" it is called "vendor extensions" and are allowed in CSS. Second, and more important: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-text/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-text/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/ http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#gradients- http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#gradients- http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-2d-transforms/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-2d-transforms/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-3d-transforms/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-3d-transforms/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transitions/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transitions/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-animations/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-animations/ Third: IE is pretty much the only browser showing now signs of support for some of the above.

markkoberlein 17y ago
Good CSS 3 links and I have to assume that the Webkit and Gecko based browsers will follow suit eventually. In regards to proprietary vs vendor extensions terminology. I would agree that "vendor extensions" would be the official name for them but I used proprietary as an adjective to describe the type of CSS that it is. If it's not an open standard and if it's closed to a certain platform isn't that proprietary? I'm also not saying that you shouldn't use them, it's based on the interface you are trying to implement and your coding preferences. All, I was trying to say that I would prefer to use images and standard CSS before I would consider using a vendor extension.