W3C Member Proposes "Fix" For CSS Prefix Problem 144
Pieroxy writes "The W3C is proposing a set of new rules for CSS prefixing by browser vendors. This would greatly mitigate the problem caused today where vendor specific prefixing is seeing its way through production sites. The problem is so bad that some vendors are now tempted to support other browsers' prefixing. The article also has a link to an email from Mozilla's Henri Sivonen that does a nice job of addressing many potential issues and shortcomings of this new proposal."
I was under the impression that browser prefixes existed to allow use of experimental CSS features before standardization; just ditching the vendor prefix seems like a step backward.
Re:The solution is.. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, they should just use the standard.
Stupid microsoft.
Many of the browser vendors are to blame. I'd love to point the finger at Microsoft, but they aren't the only one who isn't compliant with the supposed standards (CSS, DOM, Javascript, etc).
Re:The solution is.. (Score:5, Informative)
Because before it's allowed to be a recommendation, it has to have "beta'd" in 2 browsers. So, usually they prefix with the vendor-name (minus webkit browsers which use the engine-name).
Sometimes they have competing syntaxes, such as in gradients, which webkit and gecko duked out.
Basically, they need to allow to experiment, allow backwards compatibility (NEVER BREAK THE WEB), and still be able to ship. Prefixes solve this problem.
The problem most are having with this, is web developers are getting lazy, and on mobile sites only including (pretty much) webkit. So now, IE9Mobile and Firefox Fennac(? is it still called that), are having to implement the -webkit- features because sites look terrible on them, because developers got lazy.
Re:The solution is.. (Score:5, Informative)
In some cases, different engine authors have different ideas of what the best way to define the spec would be. And given that there's no solid standard yet, they want to do it the way they want to do it. And over time, they can even change their minds, perhaps submitting to the weight of the broader industry.
For example, consider Webkit's two implementations of a simple linear gradient, from black at the top to white at the bottom:
-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, left bottom, color-stop(0%,#000000), color-stop(100%,#ffffff)); /* older webkit method */ /* newer webkit method */
-webkit-linear-gradient(top, #000000 0%, #ffffff 100%);
Note that the "new" approach to the arguments is based more on the emerging "standard" (implemented the same way with -ms-, -moz, and -o- prefixes). But when you're out there before the standard emerges (or better yet, is defined), you don't just presume to define the standard.
Or, at least that's how I imagine it went down...
Re:The solution is.. (Score:5, Informative)
I used to think that too, but then I started to do web development.
Usually I develop a site on Chrome.
Then verify that everything works on Safari, FireFox, Opera and iOS/Android if applicable.
Then replace CSS styling with images to make it work on IE9.
Then reduce layout to make it work on IE8.
Then replace the div layout with nested tables to make it work on IE6.
Then thank the gods I don't have to support IE5.5 any more.
Yes, all browsers have compliancy issues. IE is just far, far worse than all the others.
Even IE9 is more troublesome than a version of FireFox from a few years ago.
IE10 improves a lot, but is still worse than the other major browsers.
Re:Opera is pushing this... (Score:5, Informative)
They're proposing this because the other "solution" they announced obviously totally sucks (but they have no choice).
To pretend this is only Opera's problem is silly. It's an everybody-who-is-not-Webkit problem. Which is why Mozilla said they will do the same, and if Microsoft ever gets any mobile devices out, they'll have the same problem.