3 ms·
The -webkit- and -moz- prefixes are there for stuff that's not standardised yet. They're experiments, maybe they'll be standardised as is (sans prefix), maybe t
by mooism2 15y ago
The -webkit- and -moz- prefixes are there for stuff that's not standardised yet. They're experiments, maybe they'll be standardised as is (sans prefix), maybe the behaviour will be tweaked and tried out in the wild some more.
- zobzu 15y agoYeah, which is exactly part of what the rant is about in fact. It happens to be around for ages, and ages. In released products. Well guess what - that's non-standard then! So I'm browsing around and half the features don't work in Chrome because they're made for Firefox. Then I browse around and half the features don't work (and usually entire sites!) in Firefox, because they're made for Chrome. Tell me how that's good. Tell me how that's different from "Best viewed on IE and 1024x786". Again, in the covert of HTML5 - or "just experiments" (which is another name for the same issue), the web is non-standard.
- mooism2 15y agoOf course the experiments are in released products. How else are we to find out whether proposed features are useful to designers or not? Really you're ranting about poor web designers who don't understand that different web browsers behave differently, particularly w.r.t. newer features and especially w.r.t. unstandardised features. Do you really think poor web designers would stop designing mobile sites specifically for the iphone's screen dimensions and start taking the plethora of android devices into account if only they were restricted to html4 and css1?