3 ms·

I'm really not impressed with this implementation, at least. Cleaner syntax, maybe, but at the cost of five more JavaScript files for one of the examples. And i

by samdk 16y ago

I'm really not impressed with this implementation, at least. Cleaner syntax, maybe, but at the cost of five more JavaScript files for one of the examples. And it looks different in the latest non-beta versions of Chrome, Firefox, and IE, so it's not any better there either. If you really dislike having to use multiple properties that much, you can deal with the syntax problem on the development side by using something like Sass. I much prefer that to adding five more unnecessary HTTP requests. The -vendor prefixes are a pain, but they do exist for a reason. Firefox, at least, uses them when the implementations of the properties aren't yet bug-free/don't completely match the spec. -moz-border-radius, for example, has some issues with very large borders that are different colors: http://basicio.com/snippets/moz_border_radius/ http://basicio.com/snippets/moz_border_radius/.

TrevorBurnham 16y ago
To be fair, it makes sense to offer five distinct feature sets as five different JS files; just pick the ones you need and concatenate them in production. I favor the Sass route as well, but that's not going to give me, say, rounded corners in IE8. I'd need to use JS to accomplish that. When you say the examples look different in the latest non-beta versions of major browsers, what do you mean specifically?
- samdk 16y ago
  There are two examples listed: http://ecsstender.org/ http://ecsstender.org/ and http://ecsstender.org/demos/spoon/ http://ecsstender.org/demos/spoon/. On Firefox 3.6, they both hang (for several seconds) as the JS loads/comes into effect (and the "stop unresponsive script" box comes up). After it does finally load, the first looks fine, but the second doesn't animate smoothly on hover, and a scrollbar appears when you hover over the box, which really shouldn't happen. On Chrome, they both work fine, but are missing drop shadows. On IE8, the first loads fine, but not of the special effects (rounded corners, drop shadows) actually works. The second...well, I think that's best described with a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/ZjPNs.jpg http://i.imgur.com/ZjPNs.jpg (there's no hover effect at all). All browsers are fully up-to-date. Unless I'm missing something, this really isn't even at all functional.
  - TrevorBurnham 16y ago
    Ouch. Thanks for taking the time to test.

by samdk 16y ago

TrevorBurnham 16y ago

To be fair, it makes sense to offer five distinct feature sets as five different JS files; just pick the ones you need and concatenate them in production. I favor the Sass route as well, but that's not going to give me, say, rounded corners in IE8. I'd need to use JS to accomplish that. When you say the examples look different in the latest non-beta versions of major browsers, what do you mean specifically?

samdk 16y ago
There are two examples listed: http://ecsstender.org/ http://ecsstender.org/ and http://ecsstender.org/demos/spoon/ http://ecsstender.org/demos/spoon/. On Firefox 3.6, they both hang (for several seconds) as the JS loads/comes into effect (and the "stop unresponsive script" box comes up). After it does finally load, the first looks fine, but the second doesn't animate smoothly on hover, and a scrollbar appears when you hover over the box, which really shouldn't happen. On Chrome, they both work fine, but are missing drop shadows. On IE8, the first loads fine, but not of the special effects (rounded corners, drop shadows) actually works. The second...well, I think that's best described with a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/ZjPNs.jpg http://i.imgur.com/ZjPNs.jpg (there's no hover effect at all). All browsers are fully up-to-date. Unless I'm missing something, this really isn't even at all functional.
- TrevorBurnham 16y ago
  Ouch. Thanks for taking the time to test.