4 ms·

From the perspective of web developers, this is a bad decision as it encourages the direct use of non-standard features and thus leaves even more space for com

From the perspective of web developers, this is a bad decision as it encourages the direct use of non-standard features and thus leaves even more space for compatibility issues. Here is why: If firefox doesn't support -webkit prefix, the developers are forced to consider the compatibility issues and use something like "autoprefixer" to help. All of the experimental features will work as well as they could on different browsers (IE, Chrome, Firefox...) But if firefox support -webkit prefix and the developers buy it, they will write something like '-webkit-feature' directly and assume it will work on the major browsers. The problem is, major browsers only includes webkit based browsers, what about IE ? If a developer uses a non-standard feature directly, forcing he/she to consider the potential problems is better than leaving him/her a fragile solution.

djsumdog 10y ago
I have to agree totally. This change is asinine. They're basically inserting a regression away from standards just so content will look slightly better in their bowser (To gain browser share?)
- EdSharkey 10y ago
  I think Firefox will continue to support non-prefixed equivalents as well. Also, it seems like there are some useful -webkit- prefixed CSS properties that haven't yet been standardized with an unprefixed name. I think this is a good thing, they're adding new features that will (hopefully) get standardized someday. Let's heap some scorn on those websites and internal corporate teams that do all their work on Chrome and Safari and never test on other browsers. It's always laziness (not testing their crap at all) or lame excuses (Chrome is faster, why would I bother?) that's to blame. I don't mind being the "Firefox guy" on teams I'm part of and making sure my baby always gets some love.
- masklinn 10y ago
  There's no regression from standard, they're not removing standard support.
- otabdeveloper1 10y ago
  > They're basically inserting a regression away from standards just so content will look slightly better in their browser The so-called 'standards' have been dead since Google forced to rubber-stamp the SPDY protocol as HTTP2. We're gonna have to learn to live in a world where the Internet is owned by Google.
- bzbarsky 10y ago
  This stuff is being standardized. See https://compat.spec.whatwg.org/#css-properties https://compat.spec.whatwg.org/#css-properties
masklinn 10y ago
> If firefox doesn't support -webkit prefix, the developers are forced to consider the compatibility issues Evidence shows that they don't, and that developers are absolutely not going back and fixing code they shipped years ago, so all the principled stance nets firefox is "firefox breaks <outlook mobile>, it works just fine in chrome, screw that piece of shit firefox".
- pmontra 10y ago
  Developers would, but do their customers pay them for that? Evidence is that they don't.
  - StillBored 10y ago
    Blah, my $%#$% credit union, upgraded their web software the other day, and it basically supports only the latest FF, and chrome browsers on the desktop. Complete with a nice please download chrome button, and a refusal to proceeded. I'm running a webkit based alternative browser, and I had to go change my compatibility string to get past it. I opened a ranty support request about the fact that they should consider replacing their web devs if they were unable to create a site that adhered to standards enough that they didn't feel the need to write browser specific code. Having spent some time in the past few years doing web development myself, I don't feel the least bit sorry for web developers that are using browser specific prefixes, or other crap. In my experience its actually chrome that has serious rendering bugs these days, and FF/IE manage to render pages pretty similarly. So, at this point if your a web developer using chrome as your default target, that should be considered incompetence.

djsumdog 10y ago

I have to agree totally. This change is asinine. They're basically inserting a regression away from standards just so content will look slightly better in their bowser (To gain browser share?)

EdSharkey 10y ago
I think Firefox will continue to support non-prefixed equivalents as well. Also, it seems like there are some useful -webkit- prefixed CSS properties that haven't yet been standardized with an unprefixed name. I think this is a good thing, they're adding new features that will (hopefully) get standardized someday. Let's heap some scorn on those websites and internal corporate teams that do all their work on Chrome and Safari and never test on other browsers. It's always laziness (not testing their crap at all) or lame excuses (Chrome is faster, why would I bother?) that's to blame. I don't mind being the "Firefox guy" on teams I'm part of and making sure my baby always gets some love.
masklinn 10y ago
There's no regression from standard, they're not removing standard support.
otabdeveloper1 10y ago
> They're basically inserting a regression away from standards just so content will look slightly better in their browser The so-called 'standards' have been dead since Google forced to rubber-stamp the SPDY protocol as HTTP2. We're gonna have to learn to live in a world where the Internet is owned by Google.
bzbarsky 10y ago
This stuff is being standardized. See https://compat.spec.whatwg.org/#css-properties https://compat.spec.whatwg.org/#css-properties

masklinn 10y ago

> If firefox doesn't support -webkit prefix, the developers are forced to consider the compatibility issues Evidence shows that they don't, and that developers are absolutely not going back and fixing code they shipped years ago, so all the principled stance nets firefox is "firefox breaks <outlook mobile>, it works just fine in chrome, screw that piece of shit firefox".

pmontra 10y ago
Developers would, but do their customers pay them for that? Evidence is that they don't.
- StillBored 10y ago
  Blah, my $%#$% credit union, upgraded their web software the other day, and it basically supports only the latest FF, and chrome browsers on the desktop. Complete with a nice please download chrome button, and a refusal to proceeded. I'm running a webkit based alternative browser, and I had to go change my compatibility string to get past it. I opened a ranty support request about the fact that they should consider replacing their web devs if they were unable to create a site that adhered to standards enough that they didn't feel the need to write browser specific code. Having spent some time in the past few years doing web development myself, I don't feel the least bit sorry for web developers that are using browser specific prefixes, or other crap. In my experience its actually chrome that has serious rendering bugs these days, and FF/IE manage to render pages pretty similarly. So, at this point if your a web developer using chrome as your default target, that should be considered incompetence.