HN Explorer

12 comments

[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 11.9 ms ] thread
mnapoli
What? You use vendor-prefixed CSS and then you complain when it disappear?

Grow up… Or read the warnings in the documentation…

mackwic
And, like always, there is a relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1172/

Moreover, there is no reason to use vendor-prefixed css without the soon-to-become standard css property. Bad code is bad code, Mozilla is not responsible to fix it.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
Anthony-G
The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Job 1:21
phireal
Can we get a [2012] added to the title? This is somewhat misleading, otherwise.
philtar
It says 'Classic'. I immediately knew it wasn't something recent.
mdibaiee
Using vendor-prefix without falling back to the standard is not Mozilla's fault. Shitty code.
saurik
The entire point of vendor prefixes is to allow webpages to start using the feature before they are standardized in order to avoid accidental dependencies of production websites against non-final syntax: in many cases the prefixed versions end up getting standardized as-is, but that is not always the case, and just assuming "I bet the standard will be the same as what I'm currently using from this browser" is something no one should be doing. A better argument might be that "web pages should gracefully degrade, and are only using these vendor prefixes temporarily for internal testing development: people who ship production websites that rely on these features are doing something inherently wrong", but developers can't just "fall back" to the standard without doing something even worse than that.
barbado8
reading comments on bugzilla, I really had a good laugh :)
Antwan
"Will be issuing Mozilla and Microsoft an invoice"

So much lol. Thanks for resurrecting this post.

jumpwah
Oh my, people like YHWH (in the comments) actually exist.