4 ms·

It feels kinda weird but a lot of the time you can just use the -webkit- prefixed versions and they'll work in firefox too.

by easrng 4y ago

zerocrates 4y ago
Firefox added support for -webkit prefixes several years ago now... I think mostly to capture things written for mobile Safari but also Chrome I imagine. I don't know if anybody really does other directions of that, though. There was probably no percentage in working with -moz prefixes for other browsers by the time this became an idea to do.
hajile 4y ago
It's like user agent strings. Developers didn't fix their user agents, so other browsers just lied about what they were so the website would run properly. Only now they were stuck with the lie as long as devs depended on the user agent string for stuff leading to abominations like this one from Chrome on Android where it basically claims to be every single browser out there. Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 12; Pixel 6 Build/SD1A.210817.023; wv) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Chrome/94.0.4606.71 Mobile Safari/537.36 Devs were NOT supposed to use prefixes in production, but they did anyway (best viewed in Chrome). Unfortunately they then proceeded to NEVER UPDATE these as other browsers added support. Non-webkit browsers had the choice of interpreting the CSS or leaving their users with a broken experience. Major browsers moved away from vendor prefixes between 2012 and 2016 (when webkit finally stopped), but it was too late. Browsers 50 years from now will still be supporting this garbage because of what devs did. The key takeaway: Never give devs a tool you don't want to be stuck with forever. Also, can we please not do this yet again in the future?
- kibibu 4y ago
  > Never give devs a tool you don't want to be stuck with forever. That's right. You can pry the <layer> element out of my cold, dead, hands.

4 ms·

It feels kinda weird but a lot of the time you can just use the -webkit- prefixed versions and they'll work in firefox too.

by easrng 4y ago

It feels kinda weird but a lot of the time you can just use the -webkit- prefixed versions and they'll work in firefox too.

zerocrates 4y ago
Firefox added support for -webkit prefixes several years ago now... I think mostly to capture things written for mobile Safari but also Chrome I imagine. I don't know if anybody really does other directions of that, though. There was probably no percentage in working with -moz prefixes for other browsers by the time this became an idea to do.
hajile 4y ago
It's like user agent strings. Developers didn't fix their user agents, so other browsers just lied about what they were so the website would run properly. Only now they were stuck with the lie as long as devs depended on the user agent string for stuff leading to abominations like this one from Chrome on Android where it basically claims to be every single browser out there. Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 12; Pixel 6 Build/SD1A.210817.023; wv) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Chrome/94.0.4606.71 Mobile Safari/537.36 Devs were NOT supposed to use prefixes in production, but they did anyway (best viewed in Chrome). Unfortunately they then proceeded to NEVER UPDATE these as other browsers added support. Non-webkit browsers had the choice of interpreting the CSS or leaving their users with a broken experience. Major browsers moved away from vendor prefixes between 2012 and 2016 (when webkit finally stopped), but it was too late. Browsers 50 years from now will still be supporting this garbage because of what devs did. The key takeaway: Never give devs a tool you don't want to be stuck with forever. Also, can we please not do this yet again in the future?
- kibibu 4y ago
  > Never give devs a tool you don't want to be stuck with forever. That's right. You can pry the <layer> element out of my cold, dead, hands.