View Single Post
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 13-03-2012, 23:57
johnmaguire2013's Avatar
johnmaguire2013 johnmaguire2013 is offline
Harps On Websites
AKA: John Maguire
FRC #3322 (Eagle Imperium)
Team Role: Webmaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 74
johnmaguire2013 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: A tip for those with CSS3 and/or vendor errors

Quote:
Originally Posted by subrc View Post
Ironically, the only reason we have to use invalid CSS is to increase browser support. border-radius and box-shadow are a part of the CSS3 spec by now, but older browsers only support the prefixed versions. After all, the whole point of using normalize.css was to get things to look consistent between browsers.

You make a great point about vendor prefixes, but I can't blame browser vendors for implementing features faster than they are standardized. It's certainly better than being the other way around. I have faith for now that the scenario you point out will never happen.

Also, non-standard code also led to some useful technologies like AJAX. The blink and marquee tags just tell one side of the story. Just pointing that out.

I care about standards as much as anyone and I understand FIRST's intention, but I think it makes sense to stretch the rules a bit.
I guess my other point is that increasing browser support via vendor extensions (i.e. prefixed versions) isn't invalid CSS. If I remember correctly, it's actually stated in the CSS3 spec that vendor extensions are valid.

And that's true, about AJAX, although isn't that pretty standardized now (despite the fact that all browsers use a different way of doing it... again, an annoyance, much like a "new feature" done during the browser war.)

I agree. I just don't think vendor extensions are stretching the rules, haha.
__________________
John Maguire
Website Team | PR/Marketing Team
FRC Team 3322 - Eagle Imperium | My Blog