3 ms·
The problem to begin with is that browser makers where adding their own baked prefixes. They where not following the spec and opened the door for designers to u
by TeeWEE 15y ago
The problem to begin with is that browser makers where adding their own baked prefixes. They where not following the spec and opened the door for designers to use them.
My opinion is that final browser builds should not support these prefixes. Its too easy to say that developers are breaking the web. Actually browser makers are. Webkit is the new IE6. Cool features but they are extending the standard with their own baked goodies.
- zobzu 15y agomight be voted down, but that's pretty insightful. just remove the inflamatory "webkit is the new IE6" and its actually very accurate.
- jan_g 15y agoI don't think it's accurate at all. Browser vendors aren't 'extending the standard with their own baked goodies', but are merely prefixing those CSS properties that aren't yet finalized, but are part of the standardization process. There's no parallel with IE6 at all, in my opinion.
- TeeWEE 15y agoIE6 sucks now. But when it came out it was one of the advanced browsers out there. And it was the first browser to support shadows and opacity. - Shadows with: filter: Shadow(Color=#999999, Direction=135, Strength=5); - Opacity: filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader (src='image_name.png', sizingMethod='scale'); It even has support for javascript in css: left: expression(15+((e=document.documentElement.scrollLeft)?e:document.body.scrollLeft)+'px'); And I remember you could even give your scrollbars colors. How is this different from webkit shipping browser with cool new features now? Similar to microsoft right? They also wanted to show how cool their browser was back then. If Microsoft never shipped IE6 with these extensions we would have a lot less issues a few years ago.
- ugh 15y agoNot following the spec? Using prefixes is following the spec. That’s how it’s supposed to work.