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.
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/ff468705.aspx#_CSS3_BG_Borders>
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I should add that the CSS WG current work page is out of date often.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.
<http://css-class.com/test/css/3/demo1.htm>
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 [[email protected]]
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/
