3 ms·

"A lot" isn't really true, here is some quantification: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/Layout/CSS_Compatibility https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/Layout/CSS

"A lot" isn't really true, here is some quantification: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/Layout/CSS_Compatibility https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/Layout/CSS_Compatibility Long-standing ones like border-radius are unprefixed but most of the recent ones like transition are not. And the overhanging problem for non-Webkit vendors is that all that legacy content out there prefixed with -webkit- isn't likely to be fixed until their next design iteration, if ever.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
It's a problem only in that other vendors want the sites to work with their browser. For really popular sites Mozilla hardcodes workarounds, it's very unfortunate. There's a fine line between sticking to spec and bad user experience so sometimes the vendors are forced to do things they'd prefer not to. From my perspective the market should work things out. If a transition doesn't work in Firefox, those users will complain and the developers will fix it; or they won't and people will stop using the services. We are to blame on HN because we upvote blog posts when someone releases a css3 flower that only renders in webkit. We are encouraging the behavior, and ultimately it's users that suffer.
- khuey 15y ago
  Do you have links to those workarounds? As far as I know Mozilla is the only major browser (out of IE, Chrome, Opera, and Safari) that doesn't have site specific hacks/workarounds.