7 ms·

Oh weird. I remember trying out FlexBox three years ago and having it work in FF. Does this just mean they dropped the -moz- prefix requirement?

by _greim_ 13y ago

masklinn 13y ago
It's a bit more complex: there are actually 2 flexbox specs with different syntaxes, one from 2009 (now deprecated) and one from 2011[0]. Firefox has supported the old syntax circa Firefox 2 (Safari from 3.1, Chrome from the first version). This is about the new syntax and current CR. [0] http://css-tricks.com/old-flexbox-and-new-flexbox/ http://css-tricks.com/old-flexbox-and-new-flexbox/
- bzbarsky 13y ago
  Firefox never supported the old flexbox. It has XUL boxes (dating back to 1998 or so), which the old flexbox was syntactically, and somewhat behaviorally based on. But they predate those drafts by 10 years.
  - masklinn 13y ago
    > Firefox never supported the old flexbox. I'm not sure why you're asserting that when you're completely wrong. Not only did Firefox support the old flexbox, it still does as of Firefox 22: [0] still works and uses the old (and prefixed) flexbox syntax, and said old (and prefixed) syntax remains documented on MDN with a note that it's deprecated[1] [0] http://www.the-haystack.com/2010/01/23/css3-flexbox-part-1/ http://www.the-haystack.com/2010/01/23/css3-flexbox-part-1/ [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/-moz-box-flex https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/-moz-box-fl...
    - bzbarsky 13y ago
      My point is that the syntax in question is used for XUL boxes, and has been for going on 15 years. It's not used for any sort of implementation of the old flexbox draft. The old flexbox draft is similar to XUL boxes in some ways, and quite different in other ways. Trying to use XUL boxes and expecting the old-flexbox behavior as a result will land you in trouble, as happens with depressing regularity when people use "display: -moz-box". The MDN documentation is sadly wrong, because it ignores the fact that the properties _look_ similar but have totally different behavior. Thank you for pointing that out; I'll make sure it gets fixed.
    - nnethercote 13y ago
      Note to self: never engage in a public argument about Firefox internals with bzbarsky.

Oh weird. I remember trying out FlexBox three years ago and having it work in FF. Does this just mean they dropped the -moz- prefix requirement?

by _greim_ 13y ago

Oh weird. I remember trying out FlexBox three years ago and having it work in FF. Does this just mean they dropped the -moz- prefix requirement?

masklinn 13y ago

It's a bit more complex: there are actually 2 flexbox specs with different syntaxes, one from 2009 (now deprecated) and one from 2011[0]. Firefox has supported the old syntax circa Firefox 2 (Safari from 3.1, Chrome from the first version). This is about the new syntax and current CR. [0] http://css-tricks.com/old-flexbox-and-new-flexbox/ http://css-tricks.com/old-flexbox-and-new-flexbox/

bzbarsky 13y ago
Firefox never supported the old flexbox. It has XUL boxes (dating back to 1998 or so), which the old flexbox was syntactically, and somewhat behaviorally based on. But they predate those drafts by 10 years.
- masklinn 13y ago
  > Firefox never supported the old flexbox. I'm not sure why you're asserting that when you're completely wrong. Not only did Firefox support the old flexbox, it still does as of Firefox 22: [0] still works and uses the old (and prefixed) flexbox syntax, and said old (and prefixed) syntax remains documented on MDN with a note that it's deprecated[1] [0] http://www.the-haystack.com/2010/01/23/css3-flexbox-part-1/ http://www.the-haystack.com/2010/01/23/css3-flexbox-part-1/ [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/-moz-box-flex https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/-moz-box-fl...
  - bzbarsky 13y ago
    My point is that the syntax in question is used for XUL boxes, and has been for going on 15 years. It's not used for any sort of implementation of the old flexbox draft. The old flexbox draft is similar to XUL boxes in some ways, and quite different in other ways. Trying to use XUL boxes and expecting the old-flexbox behavior as a result will land you in trouble, as happens with depressing regularity when people use "display: -moz-box". The MDN documentation is sadly wrong, because it ignores the fact that the properties _look_ similar but have totally different behavior. Thank you for pointing that out; I'll make sure it gets fixed.
  - nnethercote 13y ago
    Note to self: never engage in a public argument about Firefox internals with bzbarsky.