Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

paulrouget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 45 posts

Re: Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

#11

Post by ars »

cleverjake wrote: post #10
ars wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Missed one: background: -webkit-gradient(linear, 0 0, 0 100%, from(#fff) color-stop(75%, #fdd) to(#fcc)); (I hope I got that syntax right.) This one should go above webkit-linear-gradient. And it's also an example of why prefixes were invented - the syntax is totally different. I think vendors should unprefix the moment their prefix matches the spec.

>>I think vendors should unprefix the moment their prefix matches the spec. most of the time when all prefixed version are the same it means there isn't a CR for the spec, and it is therefore in flux. unprefixing it would mean sites would break if and when it is changed before reaching recommendation.

Don't know what "CR" is (community recommendation?), but obviously I mean once the spec is finalized, not just when the spec is proposed.

Re: Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

#12

Post by Achshar »

Natsu wrote: post #9
Achshar wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, i am using transitions/gradients on my project and i have to write 5(!) different rules just to set one property. This is for production code. background: -webkit-linear-gradient(#fff, #fdd 75%, #fcc); background: -moz-linear-gradient(#fff, #fdd 75%, #fcc); background: -ms-linear-gradient(#fff, #fdd 75%, #fcc); background: -o-linear-gradient(#fff, #fdd 75%, #fcc); background: linear-gradient(#fff, #fdd 75%, #…

Why not uses SASS and let mixins do that crap?

It's probably just me but I don't use libraries and secondary "languages" that compile to another language (in web development context). So no jquery, coffeescript, SASS, LESS, pIE etc. I don't feel satisfied when my code's efficiency/speed depends on some one else's code. It somehow means i am not in full control of things. I like to keep dependencies to a minimum. Which basically means I don't want to include any files in my webpage that are not written by me. (Google Analytics is an exception though)

It's kind of an obsession really, to the point that I furiously try not to use any third party library unless absolutely needed. And I haven't needed one until now. And I have also yet to regret these decisions.

Re: Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

#13

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

Achshar wrote: post #12
Natsu wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not uses SASS and let mixins do that crap?

It's probably just me but I don't use libraries and secondary "languages" that compile to another language (in web development context). So no jquery, coffeescript, SASS, LESS, pIE etc. I don't feel satisfied when my code's efficiency/speed depends on some one else's code. It somehow means i am not in full control of things. I like to keep dependencies to a minimum. Which basically means I don't want to include any f…

I use CoffeeScript, but I'm reluctant to use SASS or LESS, since they are ugly and I generally want to avoid having to use software to manipulate my HTML/CSS content. I'm fine with JS, but I like my compile script only having to copy my index.html and style.css file across, not having to invoke a CSS compiler.

Re: Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

#14

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

cleverjake wrote: post #10
ars wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Missed one: background: -webkit-gradient(linear, 0 0, 0 100%, from(#fff) color-stop(75%, #fdd) to(#fcc)); (I hope I got that syntax right.) This one should go above webkit-linear-gradient. And it's also an example of why prefixes were invented - the syntax is totally different. I think vendors should unprefix the moment their prefix matches the spec.

>>I think vendors should unprefix the moment their prefix matches the spec. most of the time when all prefixed version are the same it means there isn't a CR for the spec, and it is therefore in flux. unprefixing it would mean sites would break if and when it is changed before reaching recommendation.

They would break anyway, what's your point?

Re: Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

#15

Post by Achshar »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #13
Achshar wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably just me but I don't use libraries and secondary "languages" that compile to another language (in web development context). So no jquery, coffeescript, SASS, LESS, pIE etc. I don't feel satisfied when my code's efficiency/speed depends on some one else's code. It somehow means i am not in full control of things. I like to keep dependencies to a minimum. Which basically means I don't want to include any f…

I use CoffeeScript, but I'm reluctant to use SASS or LESS, since they are ugly and I generally want to avoid having to use software to manipulate my HTML/CSS content. I'm fine with JS, but I like my compile script only having to copy my index.html and style.css file across, not having to invoke a CSS compiler.

The CSS compilers really dont make much sense to me. The language is very easy/simple as is (vendor prefixes are a mess though) and having a compiler's overhead on every request does not feel right to me.

I love JS though, in fact it's my favorite go to language for all kinds of work, heavy duty or light. I thinks that is also a part of the reason I am not inclined towards languages that compile to JS, they kind of destroy the experience of writing JS, which I am very fond of.

Re: Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

#16

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

Achshar wrote: post #15
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use CoffeeScript, but I'm reluctant to use SASS or LESS, since they are ugly and I generally want to avoid having to use software to manipulate my HTML/CSS content. I'm fine with JS, but I like my compile script only having to copy my index.html and style.css file across, not having to invoke a CSS compiler.

The CSS compilers really dont make much sense to me. The language is very easy/simple as is (vendor prefixes are a mess though) and having a compiler's overhead on every request does not feel right to me. I love JS though, in fact it's my favorite go to language for all kinds of work, heavy duty or light. I thinks that is also a part of the reason I am not inclined towards languages that compile to JS, they kind of d…

What request overhead? I thought people used them when developing and pushed the compiled result to the server.

And I love JS too, but I use CoffeeScript since it's basically syntactic sugar for JS that saves me some keystrokes and makes my code more readable.

Re: Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

#17

Post by robin_reala »

ars wrote: post #11
cleverjake wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I think vendors should unprefix the moment their prefix matches the spec. most of the time when all prefixed version are the same it means there isn't a CR for the spec, and it is therefore in flux. unprefixing it would mean sites would break if and when it is changed before reaching recommendation.

Don't know what "CR" is (community recommendation?), but obviously I mean once the spec is finalized, not just when the spec is proposed.

Candidate Recommendation; the state of a W3 recommendation where they call for vendor implementations.

Re: Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

#18

Post by Achshar »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #16
Achshar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CSS compilers really dont make much sense to me. The language is very easy/simple as is (vendor prefixes are a mess though) and having a compiler's overhead on every request does not feel right to me. I love JS though, in fact it's my favorite go to language for all kinds of work, heavy duty or light. I thinks that is also a part of the reason I am not inclined towards languages that compile to JS, they kind of d…

What request overhead? I thought people used them when developing and pushed the compiled result to the server. And I love JS too, but I use CoffeeScript since it's basically syntactic sugar for JS that saves me some keystrokes and makes my code more readable.

> I thought people used them when developing and pushed the compiled result to the server.

Oh well, i see, that makes sense, but as i said i don't use them so i don't know very much about them. I probably should use them once just for the sake of checking them out. And coffeescript too. Thanks!

Re: Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

#19

Post by tomjen3 »

Achshar wrote: post #6
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #5

I personally think we should cut down on prefix use. Whilst it may be impractical to completely eliminate them, they are a PITA for developers, and have made the mobile web too heavily reliant on WebKit.

I know, i am using transitions/gradients on my project and i have to write 5(!) different rules just to set one property. This is for production code. background: -webkit-linear-gradient(#fff, #fdd 75%, #fcc); background: -moz-linear-gradient(#fff, #fdd 75%, #fcc); background: -ms-linear-gradient(#fff, #fdd 75%, #fcc); background: -o-linear-gradient(#fff, #fdd 75%, #fcc); background: linear-gradient(#fff, #fdd 75%, #…

Why include the MS prefix? the only browser that support is not yet in production and will presumably unprefix it before it ships.

Re: Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

#20

Post by cleverjake »

ars wrote: post #11
cleverjake wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I think vendors should unprefix the moment their prefix matches the spec. most of the time when all prefixed version are the same it means there isn't a CR for the spec, and it is therefore in flux. unprefixing it would mean sites would break if and when it is changed before reaching recommendation.

Don't know what "CR" is (community recommendation?), but obviously I mean once the spec is finalized, not just when the spec is proposed.

and as I said, this is not the case for most things that are prefixed.
Post reply on HN