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 "/",
<bg-layer> = <bg-image> || <bg-position> [ / <bg-size> ]? ||
<repeat-style> || <attachment> || <box>{1,2}
<final-bg-layer> = <bg-image> || <bg-position> [ / <bg-size> ]? ||
<repeat-style> || <attachment> || <box>{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. <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/>
2. <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#the-background>
3. <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#the-border-radius>
--
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/
