3 ms·
A poignant example is all of the non-standard -webkit CSS extensions Apple uses for the Gallery demo (http://www.apple.com/html5/showcase/gallery/ http://www.ap
by bradgessler 16y ago
A poignant example is all of the non-standard -webkit CSS extensions Apple uses for the Gallery demo (http://www.apple.com/html5/showcase/gallery/ http://www.apple.com/html5/showcase/gallery/):
#gallery-demo .grid2d figure:nth-child(5) { -webkit-transform: translateX(-241px) translateY(-3px) scale(.45) translateZ(1000px);}
If you accept -webkit CSS extensions as a standard, then Internet Explorer has supported the CSS opacity attribute for years:
filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(Opacity=80);
These extensions are not part of the CSS3 or HTML5 spec.
- mikedouglas 16y agoActually, transform is in the CSS3 working spec[0]. Until the standard reaches the "Candidate Recommendation" stage, the W3C encourages browser vendors to use prefixes (-webkit, -moz, etc). DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha, on the other hand, wouldn't be part of CSS3, and uses its own specific syntax. [0]: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-3d-transforms/#transform-property http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-3d-transforms/#transform-property
- statictype 16y agoIs there any technical reason why using webkit's browser specific css attribute and firefox's browser specific css attribute is any better than using IE's browser specific css attribute?
- pornel 16y ago`filter:` syntax isn't compatible with CSS tokenizer (IE<8 is unparseable without special tokenizer state set by the parser, IE8 uses non-CSS syntax in CSS string). IE's transform filter uses only matrix, which scares the hell out of designers.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]