The Open Web Needs You Now
glazman.org
The Open Web Needs You Now
1–10 of 61 posts
Re: The Open Web Needs You Now
#2For those who missed it: discussion of the minutes of the recent W3C meeting: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3561950
Re: The Open Web Needs You Now
#3I'm huge WebKit fan (been since KDE 2), but I agree with the author that the current situation is problematic. (Although the case with IE6 was orders of magnitude worse and largely different in nature.)
Luckily nice tools exist to automatize the boring prefixing (even for us who don't use LESS/SASS style preprocessors):
$ pip install cssprefixer
Re: The Open Web Needs You Now
#4I completely agree that Firefox must not accept -webkit-* prefixes. A better approach would be to contact the sites in question and socially bombard them into changing.
Re: The Open Web Needs You Now
#5The other browsers have been moving too slowly in their update cycles and it is starting to show. The difference this time is that WebKit is open source.
Re: The Open Web Needs You Now
#6The other browsers have been moving too slowly in their update cycles and it is starting to show. The difference this time is that WebKit is open source.
Have you even read the linked article?
using -webkit- prefixes but not the -o- and -moz- counterparts is just very bad CSS and has nothing to do with slow update circles anywhere.
Re: The Open Web Needs You Now
#7I'm huge WebKit fan (been since KDE 2), but I agree with the author that the current situation is problematic. (Although the case with IE6 was orders of magnitude worse and largely different in nature.) Luckily nice tools exist to automatize the boring prefixing (even for us who don't use LESS/SASS style preprocessors): $ pip install cssprefixer There is also a client-side solution, which I find suboptimal as a techn…
I was about to comment mentioning cssprefixer. Now I am thinking it might make sense to go around looking for sites that don't prefix properly and emailing the operators with the prefixed version. It might even be possible to do this in an automated fashion.
Re: The Open Web Needs You Now
#8Why can't we just have '-dev-' prefix which would mean "a feature implemented according to dev or working draft spec"?
When the spec changes, the updated feature could be implemented as '-dev-2-', '-dev-3-' and so on. W3C would just need to introduce consistent numbering scheme that could be followed by all vendors.
Vendor prefixes should be reserved only for features that are not standardized in any way.
Re: The Open Web Needs You Now
#9It'd be nice if the browsers could adopt a standard prefix for experimental styles (-exp- maybe) which is then replaced by the browser prefix before being used - so in Chrome -exp-text-size-adjust would become -webkit-text-size-adjust and in Firefox it would become -moz-text-size-adjust. That way we can escape the necessity of doing one rule for each prefix (-webkit- -moz- -o- -ms- etc.) and just have one. Browsers could just ignore the rules which they haven't implemented yet and web devs would not be able to cause problems by targeting just one family of browsers.
It could probably be implemented by a quick text replace before parsing (the c++ equivalent of s/-exp-/-webkit-/g) and would shrink the size of some stylesheets considerably.
Re: The Open Web Needs You Now
#10> I am also calling Apple and Google to remove support for the "experimental" versions of a property when the final one is implemented and shipped.
That is a terrible, terrible idea and will never (and should never) happen. Sure, add support for the un-prefixed property. But don't break existing sites.
That mentality is what gave us XHTML, and we all know how that went. I guess it is the IE6 days all over again after all...