Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On Dec 23, 2010, at 12:20 AM, Alan Gresley wrote:

> 
> 
> The create an oval border.

Gecko has supported that syntax for a while (fx 3.5 I think) for border-radius 
and border-image. Neither WebKit not Gecko have gotten around to support the 
full background shorthand syntax. Yet. (as you say, for the shorthand to work 
fully, the individual properties must be supported, amongst various reasons).

BTW - I find the background shorthand increasingly difficult to parse - 
manually I mean. Machine readable sure, machine generatable, probably. But my 
head spins every time I try to read it, or to write it. I find it easier to use 
longhand, esp with multiple layers of background images (try adding a 
css-gradient or two in the mix and not lose the north :-).

Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/





__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Alan Gresley]

On 22/12/2010 11:30 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:


On Dec 22, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Alan Gresley wrote:


As far as the CSS 3 backgrounds and borders module is concerned,
Gecko 2.0 (Fx 4b), Presto (Opera 11), Trident (IE 9) and WebKit
(Chrome 8, Safari 5) have implemented support for all listed
properties

[snip]


This is not quite true.


What exactly is not true in what I wrote ?


Sorry, reading above, you did say properties. So you are correct. The 
slash "/" in background shorthand is actually syntax.



[snip]





The above is not valid according to the CSS3 validator.


It all seems very valid to me, per the CSS3 module, I know the
validator has issues with the '/' syntax (both for border-image and
background-shorthand. Yves Lafon (validator maintainer) has posted
several times to www-style on the subject.


Yes, how to parse this *background: / ;* without the parser choking.



Only IE9 beta that I know of supports the slash "/" in a background
string. A simplified test which does validate as CSS3 according to
the CSS validator [1].



Only IE9 beta, Opera 11 and WebKit (Safari 5) support
background-size un-prefixed (the second of the test).


So does Gecko 2.0 b


As I suspected. Thank you for the check.



Only IE9 beta allows the slash in a background string like below
(the first of the test). I would please appreciate a check in Gecko
2 (FF 4) for the above test.


Gecko 2.0b doesn't fully support the CSS3 background shorthand. (in
my earlier mail, I was wrong about Opera 11 supporting it, I was
looking at the wrong test).


So it's seem that IE9 has really jumped the gun. Possibly with the 
greatest shock to web designers and developers. I have updated the test 
to include border-radius with a slash "?" syntax.




The create an oval border. I did this once with Firefox with there 
earlier implementation of  border-radius before they changed it.




Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com/



For those who are wondering how the slash "/" syntax relates to vender 
prefixes. For such syntax to work, some or all properties must first be 
supported un-prefixed (background-size or background-origin). Using the 
slash "/" syntax makes it easier to feed CSS3 background and properties 
to browsers that support such CSS and give the other browsers that don't 
support such CSS3 properties an alternative background. Like so.


background: url(image-older-browser.png);
background: url(light-blue-swirl.png) / auto;


--
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On Dec 22, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Alan Gresley wrote:

>> As far as the CSS 3 backgrounds and borders module is concerned,
>> Gecko 2.0 (Fx 4b), Presto (Opera 11), Trident (IE 9) and WebKit
>> (Chrome 8, Safari 5) have implemented support for all listed
>> properties
>> 
>> note: except WebKit still needs the -vendor prefix for box-shadow.
>> The module is expected to reach CR (or return to CR…) in a matter of
>> weeks.
> 
> This is not quite true.

What exactly is not true in what I wrote ?
(and nowhere do I say or claim that all browser support all properties 
correctly or completely… but all have dropped the -vendor prefix. The WebKit  
bug for removing the -webkit- prefix from box-shadow:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51448)

> 
> 
> The above is not valid according to the CSS3 validator. 

It all seems very valid to me, per the CSS3 module, I know the validator has 
issues with the '/' syntax (both for border-imae and background-shorthand. Yves 
Lafon (validator maintainer) has posted several times to www-style on the 
subject.
> 
> Only IE9 beta that I know of supports the slash "/" in a background string. A 
> simplified test which does validate as CSS3 according to the CSS validator 
> [1].
> 
> 
> 
> Only IE9 beta, Opera 11 and WebKit (Safari 5) support background-size 
> un-prefixed (the second of the test). 

So does Gecko 2.0 b

> Only IE9 beta allows the slash in a background string like below (the first 
> of the test). I would please appreciate a check in Gecko 2 (FF 4) for the 
> above test.

Gecko 2.0b doesn't fully support the CSS3 background shorthand.
(in my earlier mail, I was wrong about Opera 11 supporting it, I was looking at 
the wrong test).

Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/





__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[G.Sørtun]

Holiday task for anyone who hasn't done so yet: _read_ the that CSS3 
backgrounds and borders module:
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/
(or for the latest text, the editor's draft: 
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/)


I've put them both under the (palm)tree. Maybe I'll get through them 
till New Years eve. :-)


Georg
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Alan Gresley]

On 22/12/2010 11:20 AM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:


On Dec 22, 2010, at 1:07 AM, Alan Gresley wrote:


We now have all implementations supporting all the CSS3 properties
that I demo'd . I would please appreciate a check in FF4 beta if
anyone has it.


As far as the CSS 3 backgrounds and borders module is concerned,
Gecko 2.0 (Fx 4b), Presto (Opera 11), Trident (IE 9) and WebKit
(Chrome 8, Safari 5) have implemented support for all listed
properties

note: except WebKit still needs the -vendor prefix for box-shadow.
The module is expected to reach CR (or return to CR…) in a matter of
weeks.


This is not quite true. The check was for this test.



The above is not valid according to the CSS3 validator. A screenshot of 
IE9 beta is here.





Only IE9 beta that I know of supports the slash "/" in a background 
string. A simplified test which does validate as CSS3 according to the 
CSS validator [1].




Only IE9 beta, Opera 11 and WebKit (Safari 5) support background-size 
un-prefixed (the second of the test). Only IE9 beta allows the slash in 
a background string like below (the first of the test). I would please 
appreciate a check in Gecko 2 (FF 4) for the above test.


background: url(../images/gallery/byron.jpg) / auto;

[snip]


Holiday task for anyone who hasn't done so yet: _read_ the that CSS3
backgrounds and borders module:
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/ (or for the latest text, the
editor's draft: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/)


I second this.


Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com/



1. 




--
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Bob Rosenberg]

At 13:28 +0100 on 12/20/2010, Gabriele Romanato wrote about [css-d] 
Vendor prefixes and validation:


In response to the criticisms moved against my CSS template #1, 
here's my point of view on that matter:


http://onwebdev.blogspot.com/2010/12/css-vendor-prefixes-and-validation.html


Part of the problem in my opinion is the broken nature of the 
validation routines. They reject as invalid any Vendor Prefix and 
thus reject as invalid any page that is otherwise valid. There should 
be switches that you can use to tell the Validator that it is to 
accept any vendor prefix as valid and just care about standard 
W3C-Blessed CSS. Vendor Prefixes are ignored by browsers that do not 
understand them (ie: FF ignores -ms-* and IE ignores -mozilla-*) and 
WHEN TOLD TO so should the W3C and other Validators.

--

Bob Rosenberg
RockMUG Webmaster
webmas...@rockmug.org
www.RockMUG.org
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On Dec 22, 2010, at 1:07 AM, Alan Gresley wrote:

> We now have all implementations supporting all the CSS3 properties that I 
> demo'd . I would please appreciate a check in FF4 beta if anyone has it.

As far as the CSS 3 backgrounds and borders module is concerned, Gecko 2.0 (Fx 
4b), Presto (Opera 11), Trident (IE 9) and WebKit (Chrome 8, Safari 5) have 
implemented support for all listed properties

note: except WebKit still needs the -vendor prefix for box-shadow.
The module is expected to reach CR (or return to CR…) in a matter of weeks.

>> The code you've written above, in my humble opinion, should be prefixed
>> -ms-*, since it doesn't follow the W3C syntax (what's that slash all
>> about?).
> 
> Yes it does. Check the latest drafts [1] which has used this syntax for over 
> a year now [2]. Note the slash "/",

The code as written is absolutely correct indeed. Opera 11 already fully 
supports the background shorthand per the aforementioned CSS3 module, nice to 
hear MS has implemented it in IE 9.

Holiday task for anyone who hasn't done so yet: _read_ the that CSS3 
backgrounds and borders module:
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/
(or for the latest text, the editor's draft: 
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/)


Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/





__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd)]

Alan Gresley wrote:


It's time now to drop the prefixes. Now if you wish to debate this, then
please feel most welcome to subscribe to the CSS WG list. Not that you
will stop anything.


How are those not involved in the current discussion intended to
interpret that last sentence, Alan ?  Are we meant to infer that
the CSS WG is an unstoppable leviathon, and that no amount of
informed input will in any way affect its decisions ?

Philip Taylor
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Alan Gresley]

On 22/12/2010 2:11 AM, Barney Carroll wrote:

CC to list since this is worthy of list discussion.


Alan,

Vendor prefixes are traditionally used to implement proprietary or
experimental features.


Yes, I acknowledge that but this transitional approach has held back web 
designers and developers for years.



The idea is that bleeding-edge tech won't be
triggered by valid CSS — it must be triggered intentionally with custom CSS.


I don't quite follow what you are saying here.


This is especially important when the developers are demoing the CSS and
aren't ready to release it — you can specify the vendor prefix if you dare,
or leave the property invocation as it stands and when the functionality has
been perfected, the browser will read it.


We now have all implementations supporting all the CSS3 properties that 
I demo'd . I would please appreciate a check in FF4 beta if anyone has it.


It's time now to drop the prefixes. Now if you wish to debate this, then 
please feel most welcome to subscribe to the CSS WG list. Not that you 
will stop anything.



The code you've written above, in my humble opinion, should be prefixed
-ms-*, since it doesn't follow the W3C syntax (what's that slash all
about?).


Yes it does. Check the latest drafts [1] which has used this syntax for 
over a year now [2]. Note the slash "/",


 =  ||  [ /  ]? || 
 ||  || {1,2}


 =  ||  [ /  ]? || 
 ||  || {1,2} || <'background-color'>


or CSS in Example XV.

body { background: red }
p { background: 40% url("chess.png") / 10em gray round fixed border-box; }

About that slash "/". I was the one that proposed it to the CSS WG list 
since it was only parsed by I think Opera 9.0 (and earlier) and IE5.5. I 
proposed it as a means to introduce a fall back background-color but 
during my time away from the WG list, it developed into it current use.



The same goes for WebKit&  Gecko's different syntax choices for
border-radius — because you are specifically invoking different
implementations, the ability to use vendor prefixes comes in really handy:
you feed this code which isn't quite as it was intended to the
implementation that you know can handle it.


I dare say that you are not aware of border-radius spec from the latest 
draft [3] which also makes use of the "/"



Regards,
Barney Carroll



1. 
2. 
3. 


--
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Rob Crowther]

Alan Gresley wrote:
I should add that the CSS WG current work page is out of date often. The 
current work with the latest drafts are found here.


http://dev.w3.org/csswg/

It's not the release of a new editor's draft that's significant, it's 
the spec moving to Candidate Recommendation which should be the trigger 
for browsers removing the vendor prefixes.  Though I note in the case of 
backgrounds & borders the spec did go to CR at one point and then got 
moved back.


Rob
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Alan Gresley]

On 21/12/2010 11:30 AM, Rob Crowther wrote:

On 21/12/10 00:07, Alan Gresley wrote:

Alan Gresley wrote:

Currently IE9 beta supports most of CSS3 without any vender prefixes.






All of which do no need a -ms- prefix.


That's 16 properties, all in one spec. Even if you mean the entire page
rather than just the fragment you linked to, it only mentions 8 specs.
CSS level 3 comprises over 30 separate specs:

http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work.en.html


Maybe I am loose in my wording. This whole IE is bad camp that still is 
working its' way (possibly for years to come) through the web design and 
development community is now completely unfounded since IE9 beta is is 
on par with FF3.5. Each time someone advocates that IE conditional 
comments are good and calls vender prefixes bad are invalid just 
continues this whole cycle that holds back the web.


Maybe what I should have said is that the CSS3 that IE9 beta now 
supports are mostly without a vender prefix.


I should add that the CSS WG current work page is out of date often. The 
current work with the latest drafts are found here.


http://dev.w3.org/csswg/


How do you get from 16 properties to 'most of CSS3'?


IE9 beta supports more than 16 CSS3 properties. I note at least 8 CSS 
modules.



And, I reiterate, since most of the specs they do mention are not yet at
PR, they shouldn't implement them in the finished browser without
prefixes in most cases.

Rob


I have watched the development of CSS from late 2007. If the CSS WG went 
along with the crowd of people that demanded that all implementations 
obeyed the way one should implement the spec, then this debate will 
still be going on for years to come. Would you expect that the web 
design and development communities must wait for the release of IE10 
before we can forgo with the vender prefixes. This would hold back 
further the development of CSS3 and CSS4.


Please view this demo in IE9 beta.



It has in part this CSS3.

background: url(images/image3.png) / 60% auto no-repeat, 
url(images/image2.png) / 100% auto no-repeat, url(images/image4.png) top 
right / 80% auto no-repeat, rgba(20, 20, 255, 0.1);


Using multiple images in one string (as above) would be very hard if I 
had to resort to -*-background-size and other non shorthand properties. 
The implementations that don't support such syntax would be fed a 
different background.



--
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Rob Crowther]

On 21/12/10 00:07, Alan Gresley wrote:

Alan Gresley wrote:

Currently IE9 beta supports most of CSS3 without any vender prefixes.






All of which do no need a -ms- prefix.

That's 16 properties, all in one spec.  Even if you mean the entire page 
rather than just the fragment you linked to, it only mentions 8 specs. 
CSS level 3 comprises over 30 separate specs:


http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work.en.html

How do you get from 16 properties to 'most of CSS3'?

And, I reiterate, since most of the specs they do mention are not yet at 
PR, they shouldn't implement them in the finished browser without 
prefixes in most cases.


Rob
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Alan Gresley]

On 21/12/2010 4:26 AM, Rob Crowther wrote:

Alan Gresley wrote:

On 21/12/2010 1:10 AM, "G.Sørtun" wrote:



Currently IE9 beta supports most of CSS3 without any vender prefixes.


No it doesn't and, since only two of the CSS3 specs are currently even
at PR state, let alone CR, it would be foolish of them to do so.

Rob




All of which do no need a -ms- prefix.



--
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Rob Crowther]

G.Sørtun wrote:
>
> So if no vendor is "foolish" enough to implement them we won't get
> those W3C CSS standards anywhere.
>

I'm not suggesting they'd be foolish to implement them at all, I'm 
saying they'd be foolish to implement them without vendor prefixes.


Rob

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[G.Sørtun]

No it doesn't and, since only two of the CSS3 specs are currently even 
at PR state, let alone CR, it would be foolish of them to do so.


Hmm, actually, it works the other way round. CSS3 specs don't become 
fully fledged standards until at least 2 vendors have demonstrated that 
same specs actually work in browsers. So if no vendor is "foolish" 
enough to implement them we won't get those W3C CSS standards anywhere.


regards

Georg
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Barney Carroll]

On 20 December 2010 15:18, Alan Gresley  wrote:

> Most CSS hacks are valid CSS. You can validate your CSS with a CSS3
> profile. Critics of any of this are somewhat stuck in the present or pass.
>

Sadly, most users are also stuck 'in the present'. I build my sites with
present-day delivery in mind, and it works. What was the problem again?


Regards,
Barney
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Rob Crowther]

Alan Gresley wrote:

On 21/12/2010 1:10 AM, "G.Sørtun" wrote:


Currently IE9 beta supports most of CSS3 without any vender prefixes. 


No it doesn't and, since only two of the CSS3 specs are currently even 
at PR state, let alone CR, it would be foolish of them to do so.


Rob
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Felix Miata]

On 2010/12/20 09:10 (GMT-0500) "G.Sørtun" composed:


On 2010/12/20 13:28 (GMT+0100) Gabriele Romanato composed:



 http://onwebdev.blogspot.com/2010/12/css-vendor-prefixes-and-validation.html



It is a lot worse that you use this old nonsense in the stylesheet...



body { font : 62.5%  }



...as that small number as base causes seriously over-sized text in a
number of browsers with 'minimum font size' set at a reasonable high
number (14px in my case) acting on _declared_ font sizes. No new
templates should contain that old nonsense, as it almost always causes
problems and broken designs for end-users that can't read small text but
know how to remedy the problem in their own browser.


Examples:
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/gabrom01.png
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/bbcnSS.html
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Alan Gresley]

On 21/12/2010 1:10 AM, "G.Sørtun" wrote:



In response to the criticisms moved against my CSS template #1, here's
my point of view on that matter:

http://onwebdev.blogspot.com/2010/12/css-vendor-prefixes-and-validation.html



Never mind the critics regarding CSS validity related to vendor
prefixes. History repeats itself, and some simply can't grasp that
browser support comes before W3C standards - and in that order.



Currently IE9 beta supports most of CSS3 without any vender prefixes. 
The FF4 beta supports various CSS3 properties without any vender 
prefixes. Most CSS hacks are valid CSS. You can validate your CSS with a 
CSS3 profile. Critics of any of this are somewhat stuck in the present 
or pass.



--
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[G.Sørtun]

In response to the criticisms moved against my CSS template #1, here's 
my point of view on that matter:


http://onwebdev.blogspot.com/2010/12/css-vendor-prefixes-and-validation.html 



Never mind the critics regarding CSS validity related to vendor 
prefixes. History repeats itself, and some simply can't grasp that 
browser support comes before W3C standards - and in that order.


It is a lot worse that you use this old nonsense in the stylesheet...

body { font : 62.5%  }

...as that small number as base causes seriously over-sized text in a 
number of browsers with 'minimum font size' set at a reasonable high 
number (14px in my case) acting on _declared_ font sizes. No new 
templates should contain that old nonsense, as it almost always causes 
problems and broken designs for end-users that can't read small text but 
know how to remedy the problem in their own browser.


regards

Georg
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] Vendor prefixes and validation

[Gabriele Romanato]

In response to the criticisms moved against my CSS template #1, here's  
my point of view on that matter:


http://onwebdev.blogspot.com/2010/12/css-vendor-prefixes-and-validation.html

HTH :-)

http://www.css-zibaldone.com
http://www.css-zibaldone.com/test/  (English)
http://www.css-zibaldone.com/articles/  (English)
http://onwebdev.blogspot.com/  (English)








__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/