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

41–45 of 45 posts

Re: Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

#41

Post by Achshar »

pepve wrote: post #26
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…

You must be a rich man. I don't have the time or money to exclude everything that's Not Invented Here.

Yes, I see your point. Re inventing the well makes no sense, i agree whole heatedly. But the fact is i never had to reinvent the wheel, outside of the prefixing madness. I kind of hate jquery. It used to be very useful back in day but nowadays unless it's something very specific, jquery pretty much falls face first compared to native browser stuff. Using queryselectorall for example is alot faster in browser where as jquery is very slow, same goes for most common js functions and animations.

So i am not for reinventing the wheel, i just don't like to use square tires when round ones are better and readily available.

Re: Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

#42

Post by Achshar »

cpeterso wrote: post #34
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%, #…

Does WebKit implement unprefixed property names alongside -webkit- prefixed names?

For some properties, it does, for others, not yet. It just depends on how stable the spec it.

Re: Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

#43

Post by gioele »

kstrauser wrote: post #32
gioele wrote: post #29

I hope I will not see many more of this kind of news. Dear browser makers, please, enable your prefixed CSS properties only in dev/night/beta builds. Leave only unprefixed CSS properties in the release stable browsers. With this you will be able to test new features, show them to web developers and, at the same time, save them from the madness of maintaining five different slightly different versions of new CSS prope…

From the first bug linked from the article (at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=762302 ): The CSS Working Group has agreed to give the go-ahead to browser implementers to unprefix CSS3 Transitions, Transforms, and Animations: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jun/0105.html So contrary to your comments, they're doing this because the W3 said that it's time to do so.

> So contrary to your comments, they're doing this because the W3 said that it's time to do so.

My point is that support for prefixed CSS properties should not be available in stable releases at all.

What they should have done from the beginning (and from other comments seems it will be done in the future) is to enable experimental prefixed CSS properties only in dev builds (to demonstrate to the W3C working group the feasibility of those new properties) and remove such properties from stable releases. In this way the stable releases will have _only_ W3C approved prefixes, not the current mess of draft + CR + TR support.

Re: Mass-unprefixing in Firefox 16

#44

Post by Natsu »

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…

> The CSS compilers really dont make much sense to me.

CSS doesn't have variables. I can change my site's color scheme by changing just a few variables. (And I need to, too, because I'm not exactly great at picking them out in the first place...)

Post reply on HN