Do You Exclusively Use <code>webkit</code> Prefixes?

Do You Exclusively Use webkit Prefixes?

You’ve undoubtedly read about the vendor prefix web development drama of the week. If not, the W3C mailing lists have been on fire ever since it was discussed (and essentially announced) that Microsoft, Opera, and Firefox will begin to adopt and style webkit-prefixed properties. One of the reasons behind this decision is that we developers aren’t being responsible when coding our stylesheets; we’re applying too many webkit-specific properties, without considering other browsers.

Upon hearing this, I was left thinking to myself: is this really true?


Huh? What’s Going On?

To catch up on the hot drama, gives the following articles a read:

The basic gist is that non-webkit vendors are planning to recognize and style the -webkit prefix on a number of CSS3 properties. This is partially due to the fact, they say, that too many developers have been lazy, relying too much on Webkit, and not updating older projects (especially so for mobile designs). As these competing browsers see it, they have no choice; their hands are being forced.

It’s one thing to toy around with non-standard, Webkit-specific properties for fun (such as -webkit-text-stroke); we’ve even posted similar articles on Nettuts+. However, it’s another thing entirely if developers are, for example, exclusively using Webkit’s prefix when applying CSS gradients or transitions.


Prefixing Services

An often-touted excuse for not properly prefixing all CSS3 properties is that it can be considerably difficult to keep track of which prefixes are necessary for any given property. This is certainly true, but has our community not provided a variety of solutions?

Can I Use

CanIUse

To begin with the manual, look-up route, CanIUse.com is a fantastic reference when we need to determine if a particular browser supports a CSS3 property. If it is supported, but requires a prefix, CanIUse will tell you.

It’s an essential bookmark for all web developers (and is not limited to only CSS).

Compass

Compass

Compass is a framework for Sass that, among other things, will automatically handle the process of prefixing your CSS3 properties. For instance, to apply cross-browser, sanity-saving box-sizing to a website, with CSS, we’d write:

* {
   -webkit-box-sizing: border-box;
   -moz-box-sizing: border-box;
   -ms-box-sizing: border-box;
   box-sizing: border-box;
}

However, when using Compass, we can simply include a mixin, like so:

* {
  @include box-sizing(border-box); 
}

This way, designers never need to concern themselves with whether or not a particular browser provides a prefixed version of a new property; Compass does it for you.

Nettuts+ Prefixr

Nettuts+ Prefixr

At Nettuts+, we’ve, also, provided an easy way to “auto-prefix.” Either use the website or its API in your favorite code editor to automatically filter through your stylesheet, and update any CSS3 properties that are missing a prefixed version. This can even be integrated into your build script, so that you only ever code using the official syntax.

The difference between Prefixr and Compass is that the former doesn’t require a preprocessor, if you prefer to code all CSS by hand. Simply feed Prefixr a stylesheet, and it’ll do the rest.

Prefix-Free

Prefix-Free

Lea Verou’s Prefix-Free is a neat solution as well. It’s unique in that it’s a JavaScript-based solution that dynamically determines which browser is being used, and then assigns the necessary prefixes to the stylesheet. Simply import Prefix-free, use the official syntax for the new CSS3 properties, and it’ll take care of the rest.

While some may view the fact that it depends on JavaScript to function as a disadvantage, a considerable bonus to this method is that your stylesheets become both smaller and more maintainable. For development purposes, it’s a great choice; however, for production, you might consider using a different tool, as there can be considerable performance consequences.

CSS3 Please

CSS3 Please

CSS3Please is a nifty service that provides copy-and-paste, cross-browser CSS. Adjust the values according to your needs, and you instantly have a snippet that will correctly target all applicable browsers.


Are You Not Using These?

If you’re a preprocessor user who prefers to create his or her own CSS3 mixins, then fantastic; however, otherwise, are some of you not using these services? If so, why not? It’s understandable that Firefox and Microsoft may feel forced into supporting the webkit prefix for some properties, despite their better judgment. Particularly for older and smaller projects, we’re not always great about updating the stylesheets as needed. This is precisely why prefixed properties have hung around for so long, despite the fact that properties like border-radius have long since been supported, unprefixed. Webkit doesn’t want to “break” these websites.

So what’s the deal? Are we not being responsible?

Christian Heilmann has launched a project, called Prefix the Web; it encourages developers to update GitHub projects to include all necessary browser prefixes. Unfortunately, the initiative may be too late. What do you think?

Tags: CSS
Note: Want to add some source code? Type <pre><code> before it and </code></pre> after it. Find out more
  • http://varemenos.com/ Varemenos

    I actually start with -moz- (since my first designing circle is around firefox) and then add -webkit- and -o-.
    Though after im done with my final exams i will learn some SASS and maybe compass too.

    • Alan

      Ditto. Who ever thought it would be a good idea to create multiple prefixes must have been smoking some serious crack. If you are going to do that, how about for IE we leave the h1 tag as is, but then for Safari you have to use hEADER1, for Opera you have to use Head1, for Firefox you have to use hEaDeR1, and we can create a bunch of other equally arbitrary tags that just create more work and accomplish absolutely nothing!

  • http://russelluresti.com RussellUresti

    I’d like to see their numbers on this. They make the claim that there are so many sites using only the -webkit prefix that they have to start supporting it, but they haven’t (as far as I’ve read) provided any actual numbers of how many sites are using only the -webkit prefix for styles that are supported by other vendors (after all, it doesn’t matter if you’re only using a -webkit prefix for a property that isn’t support in anything else).

    Until I see numbers, I’m going to assume that we’re being trolled by Microsoft, Opera, and Mozilla.

    • Larz Conwell

      I completely agree with you, I would like to see real numbers from production applications using webkit only features.

      I also don’t understand why a developer would ever use just one vender prefix, that’s just either laziness or ignorance. Or both!

      Also please stop referencing “trolling” everwhere it’s a bit childish.

  • Chad

    Why not spend that time to just support the basic property instead. Why do we need the prefixes in the first place? Either support box-shadow: or don’t

    • Abhijit

      I agree, why use prefixed versions anyway, why not just go for the actual property?

      • http://www.rcdmk.com RCDMK

        ’cause it’s not a W3C standard and each company assumes their own implementation with prefixes.

        When (and if) theses properties will be standardized, these companies can implement this standard without breaking then interfaces of a bunch of sites and applications.

      • nick

        @RCDMK WHO CARES IF IT’S NOT STANDARD BY THE W3C!!! ITS DOESNT MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!! If the browser vendor put that feature in it’s browser, and others have as well, just because the w3c doesn’t say it needs to be there doesn’t mean the browser vendors need to add prefixes!! border-radius is the same in all browsers… internet explorer didn’t impleament border-radius as text-stroke.. they’re all looking at eachother and calling things the same, text-stroke doesn’t mean rounded borders, it’s means a stroke around the text. AWAY WITH PREFIXES!! GRAB YOUR PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES MEN!!! BURN THE INTERNET DOWN! BURN IT ALL DOWWWNNN!!!! WE ARE THE 99%! DOWN WITH THE T.M.I !!!!!!

    • http://digitalformula.net Chris

      I’m with you, Chad. I can understand the “hand being forced” thing, but to me a browser vendor/developer/whatever just needs to decide to support the properties, or don’t.

      I’m not entirely why they even came up in the first place … I mean, isn’t a browser coming up with something cool, prefixing it and then hoping it’ll be supported later just the same as Microsoft deciding not to support certain things just because they don’t want to?

      *shrug* Confused, I am, hmmm?

      • Al

        If we pretend for a minute that prefixes didn’t exist, and multiple browsers support the same css attribute (background gradients for example). Then the problem we have is if there is any difference in how the value is applied to the attribute (if one browser doesn’t support multiple stops in the gradient like older versions of IE) then your gradient will be broken in one of the browsers or the other and the only way to get around that then is using javascript to append different stylesheets for each browser, which is far worse then vendor prefixes.

  • http://www.romain-richard.fr Romain

    Prefix-Free is the easiest way to start the css3

    • http://bencolegate.co.uk Ben Colegate

      I completely agree, I used to use prefixes a year or two ago, I just completely give up on them now. If the browser supports the feature great, if not, well I’ll make it degrade gracefully.

      • Nick

        Agreed. Hey can you send me some toothpaste trial tubes?

    • mario

      It’s not only the easiest, in my book it’s also the most appropriate fix. While a server-side conversion tool would be the most professional and performant approach, it will always be out of date. Instead with prefixfree the problem solution is applied where it belongs.

      The CSS3 vendor prefixes are an all-client problem. And this is where it should be fixed. If you only use standard CSS3 properties then it will work without (even though minimal) performance woes in those browsers. It’s only the browser ever depending on non-standard extensions which will be impacted. And that’s how it should be. – Fix the problem at the source, and penalize those who caused the extra effort. Everything else is cobblering and allows the w3c and browser vendors to stall standardization further.

    • http://www.jeffrey-way.com Jeffrey Way
      Author

      True – it’s the easiest, but there are also performance implications, as well as potential flash issues.

    • http://www.web-cooperative.com Web Cooperative

      I’m beginning to think the same thing.

      I’m imagining a time in the future when I have to go back and adjust/remove all the “prefix clutter” from stylesheets. It’s silly at the moment having to write 6/7/8 lines of CSS just to get an opacity transition to work in “most” browsers when it should really take 2: The opacity one and the transition one.

      I’ll likely save myself the bother and update them now to minimise the work.

  • http://www.chovy.com chovy

    I them, but I also use all vendor prefixes in addition to the standard. I don’t understand why the w3c is considering adding -webkit as a standard. Just because iPhone developers don’t add the other prefixes isn’t their fault.

    • nick

      Chrome will eventually take the browser market, it should be a known fact by now. Chrome, Safari, iPhone, and Android are ALL webkit. Android and iPhone have sold multi-millions more phones than windows, the fact is, most people assume a person will be on webkit(or firefox). It would be a smart idea for browser vendors to adopt webkit. Most people don’t have the time to continually check to see if a browser has implimented a specific feature of css, meaning websites we coded for a company a year ago wont have rounded corners, text-strokes, box-shadows, in browsers like ie and opera. These browsers want people to see the websites viewed in their browser in full glory. The fact is, most people don’t add a fallback shadow to elements when the browser doesn’t support box-shadow, that browser will now just render the page without that shadow being there. If the person views that website in another browser, like chrome, they’re going to realize how much better it looks in chrome – because webkit is always on the leading edge of css features, so we all always include the webkit prefix.

      I think the w3c needs to get on it and make these css features standard quicker, but I might be missing something.

      The reality is that internet explorer, firefox, and opera make pages look worse than chrome or safari, simply because people use webkit prefixes and not the other vendor prefixes. We COULD tell every developer to stop being lazy, and that they need to SUPER-BLOAT their css with thousands of prefixes, but that’s not really going to happen.

      Android just released the “official” Chrome for Android phones, there are more android devices out there than any other phone OS, including iOS, Chrome WILL eventually own the browser market, and they use webkit, along with the iPhone (second largest number of OS’s in the world). Browser vendors want their browsers to render pages that look as beautiful as any other browser, and right now that’s not happening.

      I’m glad their hand is being forced, something needs to happen. It’s too much to continually check to see what browsers support what, then to contact all your previous clients and say “hey I need to work on your website and you need to pay me for it”… it’s unreasonable. Sure, Verou’s script is nice, but it adds extra weight to the page, with a possible flash, it’s just not THE answer.

      I support accepting the webkit prefix – to make the web more beautiful in EVERY browser.

  • Gary Storey

    I always use the non-prefixed standard as well as -moz, -webkit, -o and -khtml versions. To me it’s all just part of making a website that works in as many browsers as possible.

  • http://mrxxiv.com Terrence Campbell

    After going back and forward with using Prefixr just to get more browser support, I’d find that comforting if this happens. Nevertheless, if all the browsers support all the HTML5/CSS3 properties, my life has been saved, there are things we’ve been hoping to experience.

    Yahoo’s new coming sites for Mail & Search proves that there’s a lot of hidden potential added to Web Development.

  • Conor Haining

    I’ve always added them all, but recently, i use the non-prefixed or webkit – as i develop in chrome – and in production, I run it through Prefixr.

  • http://iamnatalia.com Natalia Ventre

    I use LESS mixins to add all the vendor prefixes, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong to target only one browser on purpose, specially if it is a personal website.

    Opera is okay, but Microsoft and Mozilla instead of adopting just the prefixes should adopt the whole webkit layout engine.

    • http://www.rockhopperdigital.com Benjamin Zalasky

      Natalia, what’s your reasoning for Mozilla adopting the “WebKit layout engine,” as you put it? Try using the HTML5 Boilerplate CSS resets and clearfix, and you’ll eliminate 99.9% of the differences beyond prefixes, which, as Jeffrey illustrated above you don’t need to worry about given all the solutions out there to take care of it… such as the LESS mixins you use. I’ve rarely encountered layout issues in IE7 since I started using the boilerplate… most of my gripes deal with JavaScript performance and quirks.

  • Lane

    I really like http://prefixmycss.com/, personally, but I can’t say I know how it’s any better or worse than any of the others because it’s the only one I really use. I just mention it for completeness since other such tools were mentioned in the article. (No, I have no affiliation with the tool.)

  • Nick

    How about we just get rid of prefixes and standardize? hmmm?

    • Eddie Monge

      Where the heck is the +1 or Like button for this?

    • Eoghan

      I completely agree. As far as I can see, the laziness is on behalf on these companies who have so much money and employees but still don’t keep up with standards, making things much more awkward for developers.

    • http://digitalformula.net Chris

      +3

      That’s one for me, 1 for Eddie Monge and 1 for Eoghan. Done. ;)

    • http://www.web-cooperative.com Web Cooperative

      Yes the process of getting something as a standard seems to take far far too long.

      I suppose all the browsers “adopting” the webkit versions is an attempt to “speed up” but it’s a shame it’ll be a “standard that requires a prefix”.

      Also how complete will it be? Will IE and Firefox adopt the exact same things?

      It’s all a bit of a mess. But then the idea of vendor prefixes has always been a mess.

      It’s a sign the web hasn’t fully matured yet.

  • Hamid

    well honestly i hope we don’t get any problem from that in the future of the web browers,i hate it when i’m using WEBKITs or MOZs exactly when i see different result.

  • Hamid

    and btw what’s a JOKE!!! ~~~> one of the reasons behind this decision is that we developers aren’t being responsible when coding our stylesheets; we’re applying too many webkit-specific properties, without considering other browsers.

    • Abhijit

      Microsoft has been neglecting the developers for way too long, now they want to pour all the love together :)

  • http://www.webmentor.cr/ Marco Berrocal

    I use -moz first and then on the second round, before I go to production, I will add them. Sublime has a cool feature, that adds them for you by hitting COMMAND+OPTION+X

  • http://twitter.com/sinnix Jeff

    “…developers have been lazy, relying too much on Webkit, and not updating older projects…”

    I’m sorry, but most of the clients I’ve worked with aren’t particularly interested in paying more for something they already own after the fact. This is just not feasible.

    I don’t appreciate being called lazy when it’s the developers of the browsers that aren’t keeping up with emerging standards and trends. I’m not going to work harder than they *already make me work* (glares at IE) to make up for their development inadequacies.

    I do like the idea of that “prefix-free” Javascript though, I think I’m going to test it out on my next project.

  • David

    I don’t think I follow… we developers are forcing browser vendors to support a single, universal syntax? I don’t care if it was out of laziness or not, the fact that developers started ignoring the vendors and their needs, now they are forced to listen to us and satisfy our needs. Ha! And the winner of the browser wars is… the developer.

  • Carlos

    The thing is that until all CSS3 functionalities have been standarized by W3C, prefix hell or non-prefix hell will continue… As of now, each browser has its own interpretation of the CSS3 draft, so I guess the problem lies deeper than most of us think…

    Prefixes were created to avoid such pitfalls, but as we have seen, some think it has done more harm than good…

  • Wouter J

    In the first place, why can Mozilla support -webkit- prefixes but not the official version? What is the difference between these 2 things?

    I always use Chrome to developer, so I only use -webkit- prefixes. Just before go online I use Prefixr to be sure I use all the prefixes and IE filters.

  • http://code-junkie.com Brannon

    I’m so confused about why they’re doing this. It seems like a downright terrible idea. I’m simultaneously confused by how browser makers can unanimously be making such a terrible decision, and how so many web developers could have made such a short sighted, lazy decision this many times for this long. By this point, I’m so used to browser makers making steady, good decisions about modern browser development that I’m actually floored that they would make a decision this bad together. I expect this kind of thing from Microsoft, but Mozilla and Opera at least tend to make good decisions where standards are concerned.

  • Ethan Kramer

    The browsers should just spend that energy supporting the unprefixed versions. Why do we need prefixes at all?

  • http://jawbfl.blogspot.com Jaw,B

    I can’t figure out the reason behind prefixes .. Who started this anyway ?!!

  • Graham

    I am trying to understand this. Isn’t this a good thing? If all the browsers adopted -webkit- wouldn’t that save everyone some time because they would only have one prefix to mess with instead of several? Ultimately the unprefixed versions should be supported across all browsers.
    Also I saw someone suggest an experimental prefix that all browsers could agree on. When everyone finally supports it it becomes the norm.

    I am a rookie here and I am not sure why I felt compelled to write this anyway. Maybe someone could explain this to me better.

  • Brad

    I am using Prefix-Free, it works excellently

  • http://www.codersvenezuela.com uokesita

    Analysis of the use of vendor-specific CSS property prefixes on the web https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708406

  • http://www.joezimjs.com Joe Zim

    I prefer http://css3generator.com/
    It’s simple to use and isn’t as eye-torturing as CSS3 Please.

  • Corey Schram

    I still use webkit prefixes….OH GOD I FEEL LIKE SUCH A LOSER NOW QQ

  • http://www.fyianlai.com/ Ian Lai

    Prefixr is a great service and I incorporated that into my LESS stylesheets to avoid redundancy. It’s quite surprising that many people do not take into account other vendor’s experimental prefixes. Certainly if a web developer would like his/her website to show up as “awesome” as it can be in every browser, he/she should have taken all vendors into account.

  • Jinxed

    I don’t use such things as vendor prefixes. Standard properties work just fine, and things that aren’t fully implemented I don’t use anyway. And I only use css3 features to spice things up a little bit so it’s not a big deal if some browser doesn’t support some of features.

    • w1sh

      ^ this. We need to unify and stop playing these stupid games.

      If you’re sick of using prefixes, stop using them. Browsers that are mature enough to support some sort of solid implementation of the CSS3 (drafts were around in 1999) will reap the benefits of users switching to them, browsers that are caught up in this high school crap will have a long way to catch up.

    • http://www.jeffrey-way.com Jeffrey Way
      Author

      Translation – nobody should use CSS3 transitions.

  • http://oscarotero.com Oscar Otero

    Hi.
    I’ve created a css preprocessor written in php and called “styleCow” https://github.com/oscarotero/styleCow with some plugins. One of them can add vendor prefixes automatically.

  • Side Six

    Could be that between Chrome and Safari usage the game is over and the other three have no choice. I’ve been thinking it would go this way.

    I doubt there are that many developers using CSS3 and not using all the various prefixes, since, from my experience, most who are believe in standards and follow best practices.

    Plus, at least around my area in Southern California, a lot of folks are still designing with table-based layouts. The local chamber of commerce just redesigned their site from perfectly valid html5 to a table-based layout without a single alt tag or any Aria tags. I think that’s still **a lot** more prevalent than we’d like to admit.

  • http://www.twitter.com/rosalindwills Rosalind Wills

    For my own part, the idea of using only *one* prefix has never really occurred to me (usually my problem is convincing myself to use the prefixes and then the spec, instead of just the spec, and certainly sometimes — not so much now but when I first started using them — I skipped Opera, but it was never *just* WebKit). Admittedly, I haven’t worked on any projects that have instructed me specifically to optimize for Apple mobile browsers or anything like that yet, which I gather from some of these posts is considered to be a major cause of this?

    Like some previous commenters, I’d like to see numbers…it seems to me that most people who are informed enough to use prefixes at all would be generally informed enough to use all of them. Certainly I’d agree with the argument that seems to be going around that this seems like a dangerous step for the future of standardization…

  • w1sh

    “Lazy” huh?! I’ll prefix their asses!

    This looks like Microsoft is buying Moz and going at Chrome for being better than them.

    The “data” is between .5 and 1% of devs actually only use webkit prefixes.

    How about making your browsers compliant, stable, fast, with nice dev tools, the ability to add/remove plugins all willy nilly, and a browser that’s not ugly?

    IE still doesn’t support all of CSS3. FF routinely crashes on me. Opera is ugly, it’s render engine sucks, and it won’t close out of the browser when you Ctrl+W everything. And Safari is Apple spyware crap.

    The only problem I’ve had out of Chrome is it clips some transform animations, but hell, that’s not bad considering my alternatives.

    If Microsoft and Moz want to follow Chrome’s tracks all day, let them. Maybe they’ll learn how to create a decent browser.

    Oh, and +1 on all the slap-fighting browsers coming together and figuring out how to support one standard. This prefix stuff doesn’t ruin my day (http://css3generator.com), but every time I see them, I chuckle to myself that browser devs are still little girls wearing diapers and pooping all over the place.

    People need to get fired over and over until someone starts listening to the web-designer/dev community on what THEY want out of browsers. Hell, we ARE the web.

  • http://www.themer.me Methemer

    What the…?
    Adopting -webkit- instead of the actual CSS3 property. Sounds like a microsofty move to make, didn’t expect that from Opera or FireFox (although firefox seemed going down for a while now…).

  • http://www.integrityinvoice.com Adeniyi Moses Adetola

    Using online tools makes life easier for example I just border-radius.com when I need border-radius and css3generator.com for other properties, using as many prefixes as possible just seems the safest way to ensure maximum compatibility. A good number of people are using IE9, I found most CSS3 properties without prefixes to work in IE9. When I build websites I use as many CSS3 properties as possible but when I build web applications ( http://www.integrityinvoice.com ) I am very picky on what I use so the experience will not vary widely.

  • Meshach Stamp

    No, I always use:


    -moz-
    -webkit-
    -o-
    -ms-

  • Luis Suarez

    Bitch please, http://lesscss.org/ saves a minifies version of the css with all the prefixes

    • http://www.jeffrey-way.com Jeffrey Way
      Author

      You mean if you use a CSS3 mixins file? Less doesn’t auto-prefix CSS3 properties.

  • Nick

    It would be extremely smart for other browsers to adopt the webkit prefix. Usually by the time browsers implement their prefix, the feature is working pretty well. Personally, they should implement it without the prefix… In fact, that’s ingenious for them to adopt the webkit prefix, it would mean more websites would look better in their browser… not many people use the ms prefix, so ie is missing a lot of box shadows and border-radius’s that the developer intended to be there.

  • Saad Salman

    W3C, Mozilla & MS is being lazy. WebKit is innovating while others lack behind. W3C needs to step up and pressurize other browser vendors to adapt css3 features in order to eliminate browser prefixes.

  • Shadow

    Can someone PLEASE explain to me why this is bad? Is there a list of good reasons for why this shouldn’t be added? Can’t seem to figure what the issue is here, nobodies actually said “this is bad because of ‘X’”.

  • Mr. Tastix

    I personally try and use prefix-free methods when coding my stylesheets but I’ll always use the -webkit prefix simply because it’s still supported by some browsers.

    Frankly, I’m all for the coding standards but if I have to break them to get something to work in all the major browsers then so be it, I will. I understand that to some this is a huge “no no” but frankly, the client doesn’t give a crap about that, they just want their site to work for a large audience.

    Aside from that, I don’t understand why the other browsers hate the idea of the -webkit prefix. I have to agree with Shadow when s/he says that those companies are just being absolutely lazy. The WebKit browsers are clearly embracing something that designers and developers have wanted for years, so why can’t Microsoft and Mozilla do the same?

  • http://www.ijasnijas.com IJas

    I use this one. It has a GUI. http://layerstyles.org/builder.html

  • http://mrkdevelopment.com.au Matt

    I think adding the prefix is no big deal.

    I personally use less so I wont ever have this problem of a feature not being supported.

    One thing I’ve thought for a while is IE should have a webkit mode in it. This means they no longer need to build the crappy render engine they currently use and we can all just use webkit.

    So much of the web uses it now so it would make sense for browser wars to stop occurring in render engines and webkit to become the standard render engine for all browsers.

    That is a good decision and would save them complaining about prefixes and actually work on browser features an UI to make the difference.

  • Justin

    First, I always use ALL available prefixes when applying CSS3.

    I understand that until CSS3 standards have been finalized that the non-prefixed methods are not technically safe to solely rely on. When the final standards are implemented there’s a chance that something you created might change in appearance or completely break (though unlikely).

    However, I don’t believe for a second that there are enough sites out there that only target -webkit to warrant all other browsers adopting the prefix. This move reminds me of IE impersonating Netscape to allow frame support back in the early days of the web. It’s misleading at the least. Using a common non-standard prefix like “-no-w3c” would make more sense, but it doesn’t achieve the purported goal of working with all of the supposed -webkit only sites overwhelming the internet .

    Ultimately the W3C just needs to get their arse in gear and finalize CSS3 standards so we can move forward (are at least work in the present).

  • http://timhillrocks.com Tim

    I’ve been using the standard and then -webkit- and -moz-. I’m going to start adding in -ms- and -o-. I don’t think that developers being lazy is a good reason for -webkit- to become the standard.

  • http://yeonactivities.nl Sander

    euh.. “we” the developers are lazy? who in the first place didnt adopt / standardize these new features any way? These browser-companies really live in the upside-down world he!

    if you think about it, the amount of hours that is spend by ALL the developers all over the world to get designs to work across multiple browsers, just because some companies dont want to comply to the standard or add the new features, is seriously ridiculous!

    Humans, how smart we say we are, but how dumb we act.

  • http://www.ideatrading.ir قیمت روز آهن آلات

    wow your articles are great so thank for your articles.

  • http://www.flashminddesign.com Matt

    I have been trying to get into /less, but it does come with obstacles. I am a bit hesitant on its capabilities and if it really is as ‘big of a deal’ as people claim. (What is your take Jeff?)

  • John

    I just want one browser, just ONE thats all.

  • Rich

    Since this whole debacle began I’ve stopped using browser prefixes. Completely.
    If Mozilla want to render once-Webkit-only attributes, besides not making sense, it’ll cause more confusion amongst users and devs alike.

    Use only CSS3 properties, ensure your work degrades/enhances properly and prepend the following to your work: