Smudge raises a valid point. The presence of both the webkit prefixed version and the standardised non-prefix version is adequate. The problem IE Mobile are wor

Smudge raises a valid point. The presence of both the webkit prefixed version and the standardised non-prefix version is adequate. The problem IE Mobile are working around are those developers who have the webkit prefixes CSS properties, but not the standard no-prefix version. Chrome won't remove them because it breaks these sites relying on the webkit prefix remaining - so there's sufficient ground there to indicate developers are failing. But it's not the developers who include the non-prefixed standardised version. Yes, there are lots of developers who don't care - the ones who rely on the webkit-prefix support remaining. That is contrary to the spirit of vendor prefixes - experimental CSS properties that should not be relied on. Those using both the webkit prefixed and the standard non-prefixed versions are using the typical graceful fallback - one that doesn't make other browsers "unsupported"