At 8:52 AM -0700 10/21/05, Derek de Jong wrote:
Why is Mozilla using a proprietary moz- CSS property? Wouldn't it be easier, for them, to just begin supporting CSS3 properties? Is it because they don't properly implement the CSS3 border-radius?
I don't want to delve too deeply into theoretical matters, but the answer is that vendor prefixes are the best way to do test implementations of properties in Working Drafts. That way, if the behavior changes before the WD goes to full recommendation status, it's easy to change along with it and not appear to "break" a non-proprietary property. This has already happened: 'opacity' changed the values it could accept from one WD to another. Thus, '-moz-opacity' was changed along with it. When 'opacity' becomes part of a full Recommendation, then Gecko can have full 'opacity' support right out of the gate. Until then, sticking with the vendor-prefixed version keeps authors on notice that it's a potentially changeable thing, and prevents any "but we have customers!" blockage.
It's all as agreed by the CSS Working Group, actually. -- Eric A. Meyer (http://meyerweb.com/eric/), List Chaperone "CSS is much too interesting and elegant to be not taken seriously." -- Martina Kosloff (http://mako4css.com/) ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
