4 ms·
I keep seeing box-shadow used as an example in projects like this, but my understanding is that all browsers which support box-shadow now support it without any
by nosecreek 14y ago
I keep seeing box-shadow used as an example in projects like this, but my understanding is that all browsers which support box-shadow now support it without any prefixes. If this is the case, aren't we better off to only have the generic .box-shadow, and not including any of the vendor prefixes?
I have been using my own version of something similar to this for other CSS properties. This looks more complete than my own, so I look forward to trying it out. Thanks for putting this together.
- JoelSutherland 14y agoIn building this, I had to look this up for each rule. http://CSS3Please.com http://CSS3Please.com has the most compact 'reasoning' for each in the form of comments. To answer your specific question, all browsers that support it do so without prefixes, but not all browser versions. For example, even with auto-updates, a non-negligible percentage of Chrome browsers out there are older.
- talmand 14y agoThat's one of the many problems with the prefixes, we're stuck with them until we're sure that all the "modern" browsers' old versions are no longer in use. Thankfully for most of those it shouldn't take that long.
- nosecreek 14y agoChrome supports .box-shadow without prefixes 8 versions back according to http://caniuse.com/css-boxshadow http://caniuse.com/css-boxshadow. It looks like the most likely place to run into trouble is the previous versions of Safari and iOS Safari, as well as all versions of Android Browser (this one surprised me). Personally, I will continue to use it without prefixes unless it is really important that the shadows work for mobile devices.