The un-shipping didn't stick this time, either. After just a few days of Nightly testing, we had three reports of significant breakage that were caused by this un-shipping (on zimbra[1], blogger[2], and a demo page for a webapp framework[1] which may have legacy instances deployed). So, I backed out (re-enabling -moz prefixed gradient functions).
Given that we've attempted this un-shipping & it's bounced several times over the years, I tend to think we can't un-ship this moz-prefixed syntax after all. The web unfortunately seems to depend on being able to UA sniff & send -moz prefixed gradient CSS to Firefox-flavored browsers (with no fallback CSS). ~Daniel [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1183994 [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1512577 [3] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1512224 On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 1:45 PM <dholb...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 6:22:48 PM UTC-7, Xidorn Quan wrote: > > In bug 1337655 [1], I'm going to disable -moz-prefixed CSS gradient > > functions by default. > > This didn't stick (back in 2017), because it broke some buttons on gmail > (which was filed as https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1366526 > ). But that was later fixed on Google's end, and we didn't get any other > reports of breakage, so I've just re-landed this. > > So, consider this a resurrected "intent to un-ship" -moz-prefixed CSS > gradient functions. :) > > For now, I've only disabled them for EARLY_BETA_OR_EARLIER (i.e. Firefox > 65 nightly and first half of Firefox 65 beta period), to get some testing > without affecting release builds. But if we don't have any serious > webcompat fallout, we can relax that restriction and disable them in > release as well. > > The full-disabling is tracked in > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1176496. > > I'll quote the rest of xidorn's original intent-to-unship, for extra > context/background: > > We would still have -webkit-prefixed version of those functions which is > > part of the Compat spec [2]. The assumption is that there wouldn't be > > too many pages which depend on -moz-prefixed ones without also having > > the -webkit-prefixed counterpart. > > > > [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1337655 > > [2] https://compat.spec.whatwg.org/#css-image-type > > > > > > - Xidorn > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
