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
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
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
On Dec 23, 2010, at 12:20 AM, Alan Gresley wrote:
http://css-class.com/test/temp/test-slash.htm
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
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
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I should add that the CSS WG current work page is out of date often.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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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% }
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
On 20 December 2010 15:18, Alan Gresley a...@css-class.com 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
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
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
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
