By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,492 Members | 1,955 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,492 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

CSS3?

P: n/a

http://www.geo cities.com/seanmhall2003/css3/compat.html

Anyone know if Firefox, say, implements just a tad more CSS3 than
this?

I was thinking of downloading. It's free, unlike Opera.

Looks interesting, however.
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
30 Replies


P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
http://www.geo cities.com/seanmhall2003/css3/compat.html

Anyone know if Firefox, say, implements just a tad more CSS3 than
this?

I was thinking of downloading. It's free, unlike Opera.

Looks interesting, however.


I haven't tested it fot CSS3 (?) but if Firefox dont support it, it will
soon. BTW Firefox is great for surfing, you should really try it.
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
http://www.geo cities.com/seanmhall2003/css3/compat.html

Anyone know if Firefox, say, implements just a tad more CSS3 than
this?

I was thinking of downloading. It's free, unlike Opera.

Looks interesting, however.


I can't resolve the above URL. Firefox implements some CSS3 (for example,
:lastchild).

But I can't find a use for this. People publishing websites tend to test them
in IE, for obvious reasons. So when I am looking at their websites, I might as
well use IE.

And when I am testing my own pages, there is no point in using CSS3, if only a
tiny proportion of people in the world use browsers that can handle it.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Barry Pearson wrote:
And when I am testing my own pages, there is no point in using CSS3, if only a
tiny proportion of people in the world use browsers that can handle it.


You can use it as a degradeable enhancement. Then when people try a real
browser, they can see the difference versus, say, Internet Explorer.

If everyone took your view, there'd be no progress.

--
Mark.
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Mark Tranchant wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:
And when I am testing my own pages, there is no point in using CSS3,
if only a
tiny proportion of people in the world use browsers that can handle it.

You can use it as a degradeable enhancement. Then when people try a real
browser, they can see the difference versus, say, Internet Explorer.

If everyone took your view, there'd be no progress.


I tend to take this view. I've designed sites where the nav block has
-moz-rounded-corners on the :first-child and :last-child for example,
since a containing div with rounded corners allows the internal block's
corners to stick out. Makes things look a bit nicer for gecko users with
no (current ;) downside for IE users.

P
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
On Wed, 19 May 2004, Mark Tranchant wrote:
You can use it as a degradeable enhancement.
That's the theory, indeed. WWW-conforming client agents are supposed
to ignore any CSS constructs which they don't understand.
Then when people try a real
browser, they can see the difference versus, say, Internet Explorer.
History shows that IE will make a guess at anything which it doesn't
understand, and often enough turn it into a disaster.
If everyone took your view, there'd be no progress.


There are ways of hiding progress from those client agents which can't
handle it, hmmm?

all the best
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Mark Tranchant wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:
And when I am testing my own pages, there is no point in using CSS3,
if only a tiny proportion of people in the world use browsers that
can handle it.


You can use it as a degradeable enhancement. Then when people try a
real browser, they can see the difference versus, say, Internet
Explorer.

If everyone took your view, there'd be no progress.


When I want to change the world, I don't resort to futile gestures or
headbanging. I get onto television & radio to make my views known. I talk to
the press. I communicate with government ministers & members of parliament. I
work with lobby groups. I've given evidence to a parliamentary committee.

I can't make the world change according to how I develop my websites! I am
just one of many millions. So are you.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Barry Pearson wrote:
Mark Tranchant wrote:

If everyone took your view, there'd be no progress.


When I want to change the world, I don't resort to futile gestures or
headbanging. I get onto television & radio to make my views known. I talk to
the press. I communicate with government ministers & members of parliament. I
work with lobby groups. I've given evidence to a parliamentary committee.


What - advising them not to use IE?!

--
Mark
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
Barry Pearson wrote:

And when I am testing my own pages, there is no point in using CSS3, if only a
tiny proportion of people in the world use browsers that can handle it.


There's a definite chicken/egg problem here. But if many people enhance
their sites for modern browsers and advertise so, there may be positive
effects.

I guess people just get tired of this though; years ago, IE was in the
minority and everyone swooned and started using CSS, document.all, and a
bunch of other junk, but why not know? Evil software dictatorship that
everyone's too afraid to disobey?

But we're not changing the world. We're just enhancing the experience
of those who know better than use IE, and trying to educate those who
still use it.

Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Phil Evans wrote:
Mark Tranchant wrote:
You can use it as a degradeable enhancement. Then when people try a
real browser, they can see the difference versus, say, Internet Explorer.

I tend to take this view. I've designed sites where the nav block has
-moz-rounded-corners on the :first-child and :last-child for example


From the frying pan into the fire?
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Firas wrote:
Phil Evans wrote:
Mark Tranchant wrote:


You can use it as a degradeable enhancement. Then when people try a
real browser, they can see the difference versus, say, Internet
Explorer.


I tend to take this view. I've designed sites where the nav block has
-moz-rounded-corners on the :first-child and :last-child for example


From the frying pan into the fire?


In what sense? Assuming you mean using proprietary CSS extensions, I've
made my peace with that. The HTML is valid and (hopefully) logically
marked up, so the structure is sound. I'm not relying on the rounded
corners for site usability or functionality, they're just an additional
visual treat for people who use gecko browsers. If I was using a
proprietary extension which rendered the site unusable on browsers which
didn't support it, I'd be worried, but I don't see any harm in my
current attitude . . .

Though of course I'm keen to hear alternate views :)

P
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Phil Evans wrote:
Firas wrote:
Mark Tranchant wrote:
I tend to take this view. I've designed sites where the nav block has
-moz-rounded-corners on the :first-child and :last-child for example


From the frying pan into the fire?

In what sense? Assuming you mean using proprietary CSS extensions, I've
made my peace with that.
Yup, that :)

The HTML is valid and (hopefully) logically marked up, so the structure is sound.
Does the CSS validate? I'm not a validity fetishist--as in, writing
valid markup just for the sake of just passing the test of validity--but
it stands for interoperability in my mind.

I'm not relying on the rounded corners for site usability or functionality, they're just an additional
visual treat for people who use gecko browsers.
Would you use scrollbar colouring as an additional visual treat for
those who use IE?

If I was using a proprietary extension which rendered the site unusable on browsers which
didn't support it, I'd be worried, but I don't see any harm in my
current attitude . . .

Though of course I'm keen to hear alternate views :)


Here's mine, then. Gecko-specific extensions work *just* for gecko. It's
not worse than using <marquee> (back when it wasn't even considered to
be standardized) and netscape-specific hacks. That got us into a huge
mess, didn't it.

This is not just ivory-tower theory; there's already this in the works:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-bo...-border-radius.
I'm not sure whether Mozilla supports it or not, but they should be
pressed to. And opera and IE and whatnot. Write once, read everywhere
(and on everything.)

When it comes down to it, of course, there is no real harm in using a
couple of browser-specific enhancements; the harm comes when it becomes
an overdone crutch.

Wow, my tone is really dry here--to clarify, I'm just a novice and I
don't really have a grasp on web authoring theory: I'm just relaying
what I've picked up. It could all be relative.
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Firas wrote:

Would you use scrollbar colouring as an additional visual treat for
those who use IE?


The only ones who think coloring scrollbars is a neat effect are the web
authors who do it. It just creates usability problems, whereas mozilla's
rounded corners do no harm.

There's a big difference, mate.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:14:12 -0500, kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:
Firas wrote:

Would you use scrollbar colouring as an additional visual treat for
those who use IE?


The only ones who think coloring scrollbars is a neat effect are the web
authors who do it. It just creates usability problems, whereas mozilla's
rounded corners do no harm.

There's a big difference, mate.


Except of course the CSS working don't think it's a bad thing, they
just don't think it's easy to specify due to different platforms
having different scrollbar elements.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
kchayka wrote:
Firas wrote:
Would you use scrollbar colouring as an additional visual treat for
those who use IE?

The only ones who think coloring scrollbars is a neat effect are the web
authors who do it. It just creates usability problems, whereas mozilla's
rounded corners do no harm.

There's a big difference, mate.


Oh please. This is arbitary. I know users who like coloured scrollbars.

Anyway, we're talking about different things here. Would you use IE-only
code that is not a usability problem?
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
Firas wrote:

I know users who like coloured scrollbars.
They are a minority, I'm sure. :)
Anyway, we're talking about different things here. Would you use IE-only
code that is not a usability problem?


If there was value-added without any negative side effects, maybe. I
have used IE-only code to work around its many bugs, but not for
anything else. Can't really think of anything that's worth the extra
trouble, myself.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
Jim Ley wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:14:12 -0500, kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:
The only ones who think coloring scrollbars is a neat effect are the web
authors who do it.


Except of course the CSS working don't think it's a bad thing,


Regardless, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a

"kchayka" wrote in message

I know users who like coloured scrollbars.


They are a minority, I'm sure. :)
Anyway, we're talking about different things here. Would you use IE-only
code that is not a usability problem?


If there was value-added without any negative side effects, maybe. I
have used IE-only code to work around its many bugs, but not for
anything else. Can't really think of anything that's worth the extra
trouble, myself.


Interesting thread ... can I chuck in a view from an amateur?

I'm one of those who only recently decided that (a) IE was no longer "fun"
and (b) *did* think that colored scrollbars were cool. I now use Firefox for
fun and Moz for messin' around ... (I just discovered the DOM inspector and
boy am I getting a fast lesson in why my some of my pages didn't turn out as
planned.)

Meanwhile IE it looks so plain and frumpy when I havr to look at it ... it
even makes Opera look exciting. In short IMO IE is crying out for bit of
glam ... and only a really dumb designer is gonna make the scrollbars
invisible and if he'she is that dumb then the site isn't gonna be worth
looking at anyway.

Besides ... style sheets can be loaded in 'chapters' so why not ie_body.css
and nn_body.css + the_rest.css and then use a browser sniffer ... that way
sniffy gecko-geeks won't get all outraged when they peek at the code ...
:D

Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
Firas wrote:
Phil Evans wrote: (snip: using -moz-rounded-corners in site design)
In what sense? Assuming you mean using proprietary CSS extensions,
I've made my peace with that.

Yup, that :)
The HTML is valid and (hopefully) logically
marked up, so the structure is sound.


Does the CSS validate?


Other than the proprietary extensions, yes :p ;)
I'm not relying on the rounded
corners for site usability or functionality, they're just an
additional visual treat for people who use gecko browsers.

Would you use scrollbar colouring as an additional visual treat for
those who use IE?


I'm with kchayka on the useability issue, but I know what you're saying
:) No, I wouldn't have any problem with using IE-only extensions for
decorative purposes. I wouldn't in practice, because I want to encourage
people away from IE ("look how shiny the site looks in other browsers!")
but I've got no philosophical objection.
Here's mine, then. Gecko-specific extensions work *just* for gecko. It's
not worse than using <marquee> (back when it wasn't even considered to
be standardized) and netscape-specific hacks. That got us into a huge
mess, didn't it.
Yup, I agree. I've justified this to myself using our oft-touted
philosophy of separating content and presentation. My content remains
the same whichever browser you use; my presentation may have additional
shininess if you're using a Gecko based browser. In the same way that
I'd expect my site to degrade in the absence of any CSS, I expect it to
still be totally usable in the absence of the -moz-* extensions. This is
the theory anyway ;)
This is not just ivory-tower theory; there's already this in the works:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-bo...-border-radius.
I'm not sure whether Mozilla supports it or not, but they should be
pressed to. And opera and IE and whatnot. Write once, read everywhere
(and on everything.)
http://tinyurl.com/32hzb [blooberry.com Netscape CSS Extensions page]
mentions this:

"It LOOKS like many of these proprietary properties are one-to-one
mappings of many of the new features in the CSS3 working draft: "User
Interface for CSS3". Since this document has not been finalized, it
looks like Mozilla decided to err on the side of caution and put the
functionality under special names until CSS3 is more complete."
Wow, my tone is really dry here--to clarify, I'm just a novice and I
don't really have a grasp on web authoring theory: I'm just relaying
what I've picked up. It could all be relative.


It's all friendly banter; I wouldn't be a true geek if I didn't enjoy
discussing this kind of stuff :)

P
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
> > This is not just ivory-tower theory; there's already this in the works:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-bo...-border-radius.
I'm not sure whether Mozilla supports it or not, but they should be

<SNIP>

both mozilla and the latest version of netscape support the border radius
below.
I used it on my site as a added suprise for moz and netscape users. (and
also coz I wanted to test it out ;) )

Wayne

www.secretwebdesign.com
www.starasphost.com

code::

-moz-border-radius: 10px; /* mozilla rounded box -not work on ie etc.. */
/* you can also use it on seperate corners such as - */
-moz-border-radius-topright: 10px;
-moz-border-radius-topleft: 10px;
-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 5px;
-moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 5px;
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:37:06 -0400, Firas <us****@firasd.org> wrote:

Oh please. This is arbitary. I know users who like coloured scrollbars.


When you say that they "like" coloured scrollbars, are you claiming
that it makes them happy to see them?

I'd find it very hard to believe that someone would, for example,
prefer one site over another purely because one had a blue scrollbar
while the other had the standard, Windows-provided scrollbar.

Sure, it can sometimes look pretty, but I really can't imagine any
user saying "Dang, I really wish this shopping site had a pink
scrollbar."

Oh well.

-Claire
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
Claire Tucker schrieb:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:37:06 -0400, Firas <us****@firasd.org> wrote:
Oh please. This is arbitary. I know users who like coloured scrollbars.


When you say that they "like" coloured scrollbars, are you claiming
that it makes them happy to see them?


I use colored scrollbars on one site
http://www.kgu.de/zfg/geburtshilfe/
and I really don't think it does much harm and it definitly looks
nice. But it is only an inline scrollbar, not the one of the main
window of course.

Greetings, Jan

--
Axis of Evil! Countries with death penalty on juveniles:
Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, USA
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
Jan Steffen wrote:

I use colored scrollbars on one site
http://www.kgu.de/zfg/geburtshilfe/
and I really don't think it does much harm and it definitly looks
nice. But it is only an inline scrollbar, not the one of the main
window of course.


Relax, because whatever you do, you are using the Comic Sans font on
that page -- which means things can't get worse :)
http://www.bancomicsans.com/home.html

PS: Introducing background Midis and animated GIFs would add to the
overall atmosphere...
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
Abby Hart wrote:
Besides ... style sheets can be loaded in 'chapters' so why not ie_body.css
and nn_body.css + the_rest.css and then use a browser sniffer

what kind of browser sniffing ? With the User-Agent ? It's really stupid.
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
Claire Tucker wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:37:06 -0400, Firas <us****@firasd.org> wrote:
Oh please. This is arbitary. I know users who like coloured scrollbars.
Sure, it can sometimes look pretty, but I really can't imagine any
user saying "Dang, I really wish this shopping site had a pink
scrollbar."

Oh well.

-Claire


Huh? I meant yes, it looks pretty and hence they like it. It's a mostly
subtle enhancement, like :hover, say--not every visual hint has to be
desperately desired by the user to be appreciated.

Not that I've ever done it, but I think a lot of us markup geeks forget
that packaged, well-designed stuff looks nice to people (even wholly
flash sites.)
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
On 2 Jun 2004 16:35:23 GMT, Philipp Lenssen <in**@outer-court.com> wrote:
Relax, because whatever you do, you are using the Comic Sans font on
that page -- which means things can't get worse :)
http://www.bancomicsans.com/home.html
Though I just saw a website the other day which implied that on Windows
machines, Comic Sans is more widely available than TNR.
PS: Introducing background Midis and animated GIFs would add to the
overall atmosphere...


Rising bubbles and lots of fire!
Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
Neal wrote:
On 2 Jun 2004 16:35:23 GMT, Philipp Lenssen <in**@outer-court.com> wrote:
PS: Introducing background Midis and animated GIFs would add to the
overall atmosphere...


Rising bubbles and lots of fire!


A crumpled paper background and a rotating globe for e-mail always add a
touch of class . . .

P
Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:09:11 +0100, Phil Evans
<RE*********************@philevans.haddock.com> wrote:
Neal wrote:
On 2 Jun 2004 16:35:23 GMT, Philipp Lenssen <in**@outer-court.com>
wrote:
PS: Introducing background Midis and animated GIFs would add to the
overall atmosphere...


Rising bubbles and lots of fire!


A crumpled paper background and a rotating globe for e-mail always add a
touch of class . . .

P

No, no. The email link is a mailbox "eating" a letter. The rotating globe
just lets the visitor know they are on the Internet!!11!
Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
Abby Hart wrote:
and then use a browser sniffer ... that way sniffy gecko-geeks
won't get all outraged when they peek at the code


Since it is trivial to fake a ua string, this doesn't seem like
terribly useful advice.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
Firas wrote:
Phil Evans wrote:
Firas wrote:
I'm not relying on the rounded corners for site usability or
functionality, they're just an additional visual treat for people
who use gecko browsers.


Would you use scrollbar colouring as an additional visual treat for
those who use IE?


Not quite the same thing. There is little point in trying to mess with
the browser chrome. If you were reckless, you might really frighten
someone into thinking a virus is on the loose.
Here's mine, then. Gecko-specific extensions work *just* for gecko.
Indeed. But unless another browser adopts support for properties
beginning with "-moz," I can't see any problem with that. This is not
an endorsement for -moz properties, but an assessment of the possible
hazards.
It's not worse than using <marquee>
Except that css is optional, and html is not; rounded corners can be
changed by the user fairly easily, <marquee> can not; and rounded
corners on a box does not create a usability problem per se, while
<marquee> does.
(back when it wasn't even considered to be standardized) and
netscape-specific hacks. That got us into a huge mess, didn't it.
Indeed, because <marquee> attempts to make HTML into a presentational
language. What is Googlebot supposed to make of <marquee>? But what
has this to do with css?
This is not just ivory-tower theory; there's already this in the
works:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-bo...-border-radius.
I'm not sure whether Mozilla supports it or not, but they should
be pressed to.


That's sorta what the -moz property is. Since css 3 is not a
recommendation yet, they cannot support css3 properties as they appear
in the spec. After all, what if the property name is changed?

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
Brian wrote:
Firas wrote:

This is not just ivory-tower theory; there's already this in the
works:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-bo...-border-radius.
I'm not sure whether Mozilla supports it or not, but they should
be pressed to.

That's sorta what the -moz property is. Since css 3 is not a
recommendation yet, they cannot support css3 properties as they appear
in the spec. After all, what if the property name is changed?


Yeah, I shutted up after someone pointed that out elsewhere in the
thread. If it's more of a taste CSS3 than a propriety treat for gecko
users, use it everywhere I say :)
Jul 20 '05 #31

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.