6 ms·

You have to actually read the article, because it's a little different than the (kinda linkbaity) title implies. The root issue isn't about market share, it's

You have to actually read the article, because it's a little different than the (kinda linkbaity) title implies. The root issue isn't about market share, it's about writing browser-specific code. That was a bad idea in 2002, and it's an even worse idea in 2012 now that we have the benefit of history and are so many polyfills. Writing --webkit-only code doesn't stick it to the man, it sticks it to the web ecosystem that we all swim in. I had long and frustrating arguments a decade ago with web developers who enjoyed writing IE-only code because they were upset about a Netscape bug they'd hit last month. They were sticking it to... everyone, a few years later. Bottom line: if you're a professional web developer, act like it.

keeperofdakeys 14y ago
The main problem is the CSS prefixes. Since features under them might be different, they need to exist separately, but developers tend to use them even if they aren't fully standardised yet.
- curiousdannii 14y ago
  The problem discussed here isn't the use of CSS prefixed properties -- it's the use of ONLY CSS prefixed properties. Include prefixed properties and the official properties and when browsers drop the prefixes everyone is happy. Well, unless their initial implementation was non-standard. But even if that is the case, if you don't update your CSS, including the non-prefixed property won't hurt your design more than leaving it out will.
yuhong 14y ago
Reminds of people using "standard compliance" when "boat anchor" is meant.
- jongalloway2 14y ago
  Example, please
  - yuhong 14y ago
    http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110123#l-626 http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110123#l-626
astrodust 14y ago
I'm waiting for the people writing the CSS and HTML standards to do something like be more proactive about approving extensions so we don't need the -webkit garbage in front of rules. It should be as simple as filling out a form requesting a property and getting it within a matter of weeks at the outside. If you can apply for ".poop" as a top-level domain name, there's no excuse for not having a CSS registry.
- hosay123 14y ago
  Can you imagine the size of the CSS spec if any old brainless mutt could add to it on a few weeks' notice for the past 15 years? At which point, creating a fresh browser implementation quickly becomes insurmountable.
  - gsnedders 14y ago
    Creating a fresh browser implementation is pretty much already insurmountable! The last time anyone major implemented a browser from scratch (at least in a major sense) was Mozilla in the late 90s: everyone since has just built on previous work, as even though people may hate design decisions (that made sense a decade ago!) the cost of starting again is too high.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    I never said that they'd all be approved. Surely an extension request from someone the committee had never heard of would be rejected, but from the WebKit or Mozilla crew they would give it consideration. It would help break up the formalization process into smaller components. Even then, until it's absorbed into the standard there's no obligation to implement that property. It would just mean you could be assured that if your proposal did make it into the standard, you would already be using the correct name.
- gsnedders 14y ago
  Adding a TLD requires a single DNS entry. Adding a CSS property requires a full specification of how it behaves and interacts with the rest of the CSS model. The former is simple, the latter is hard.

keeperofdakeys 14y ago

The main problem is the CSS prefixes. Since features under them might be different, they need to exist separately, but developers tend to use them even if they aren't fully standardised yet.

curiousdannii 14y ago
The problem discussed here isn't the use of CSS prefixed properties -- it's the use of ONLY CSS prefixed properties. Include prefixed properties and the official properties and when browsers drop the prefixes everyone is happy. Well, unless their initial implementation was non-standard. But even if that is the case, if you don't update your CSS, including the non-prefixed property won't hurt your design more than leaving it out will.

yuhong 14y ago

Reminds of people using "standard compliance" when "boat anchor" is meant.

jongalloway2 14y ago
Example, please
- yuhong 14y ago
  http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110123#l-626 http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110123#l-626

astrodust 14y ago

I'm waiting for the people writing the CSS and HTML standards to do something like be more proactive about approving extensions so we don't need the -webkit garbage in front of rules. It should be as simple as filling out a form requesting a property and getting it within a matter of weeks at the outside. If you can apply for ".poop" as a top-level domain name, there's no excuse for not having a CSS registry.

hosay123 14y ago
Can you imagine the size of the CSS spec if any old brainless mutt could add to it on a few weeks' notice for the past 15 years? At which point, creating a fresh browser implementation quickly becomes insurmountable.
- gsnedders 14y ago
  Creating a fresh browser implementation is pretty much already insurmountable! The last time anyone major implemented a browser from scratch (at least in a major sense) was Mozilla in the late 90s: everyone since has just built on previous work, as even though people may hate design decisions (that made sense a decade ago!) the cost of starting again is too high.
- astrodust 14y ago
  I never said that they'd all be approved. Surely an extension request from someone the committee had never heard of would be rejected, but from the WebKit or Mozilla crew they would give it consideration. It would help break up the formalization process into smaller components. Even then, until it's absorbed into the standard there's no obligation to implement that property. It would just mean you could be assured that if your proposal did make it into the standard, you would already be using the correct name.
gsnedders 14y ago
Adding a TLD requires a single DNS entry. Adding a CSS property requires a full specification of how it behaves and interacts with the rest of the CSS model. The former is simple, the latter is hard.