Tags: prefixes



Tuesday, April 26th, 2016

Updating Our Prefixing Policy | WebKit

Ted has snuck a blog post out from behind Apple’s wall of silence, and it’s good news: WebKit is not going to use vendor prefixes for new features.

Tuesday, August 25th, 2015

Doing Science On The Web – Infrequently Noted

Alex recounts the sordid history of vendor prefixes and looks to new ways of allowing browsers to ship experimental features without causing long-term harm.

Monday, August 4th, 2014

The Mobile Web should just work for everyone - IEBlog

One more reason why you should never sniff user-agent strings: Internet Explorer is going to lie some more. Can’t really blame them though—if developers didn’t insist on making spurious conclusions based on information in the user-agent string, then browsers wouldn’t have to lie.

Oh, and Internet Explorer is going to parse -webkit prefixed styles. Again, if developers hadn’t abused vendor prefixes, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Tuesday, May 8th, 2012

Proposition to change the prefixing policy from Florian Rivoal on 2012-05-04 (www-style@w3.org from May 2012)

This seems like a sensible way for browsers to approach implementing vendor-prefixed CSS properties.

Thursday, March 15th, 2012

South by CSS

South by Southwest has become a vast, sprawling festival with a preponderance of panels pitched at marketers, start-ups and people that use the words “social media” in their job title without irony. But there were also some great design and development talks if you looked for them.

Samantha gave a presentation on style tiles, which I unfortunately missed but I’ll be eagerly awaiting the release of the audio. I also missed some good meaty JavaScript talks but I did manage to make it along to Jen’s excellent introduction to HTML5 APIs.

Andy’s talk on CSS best practices was one of the best presentations I’ve ever seen. He did a fantastic job of tackling some really important topics. It’s a presentation (and a presenter) that deserves a wider audience, so if you’re involved in putting together the line-up for any front-end conferences, I highly recommend that you nab him.

Divya put together an absolutely killer panel called CSS.next, all about how CSS gets specced and shipped, and what’s coming down the line. All of the panelists were smart, articulate, and well-informed. The panel was very enlightening, as well as being thoroughly enjoyable.

And then there was the Browser Wars panel.

This is something of a SXSW tradition. Arun assembles a line-up of representatives from browser makers—Mozilla, Google, Microsoft, and Opera—and then peppers them with some hardball questions. Apple is invited to send a representative every year, and every year, Apple declines.

There was no shortage of contentious topics this year. The subject of Google Dart was raised (“Good luck with that,” said Brendan). There was also plenty of discussion about the recent DRM proposal submitted to the HTML working group. There was a disturbing level of agreement amongst all the panelists that some form of DRM for video was needed because, hey, that’s just the way things go…

As an aside, I must say I found the lack of imagination on display to be pretty disheartening. Two years ago, Chris was on the Browser Wars panel representing Microsoft, defending the EOT format because, hey, that’s just the way things go. Without some form of DRM, he argued, we couldn’t have fonts on the web. Well, the web found a way. Now Chris is representing Google but the argument remains the same. DRM, so the argument goes, is the only way we’ll get video on the web because that’s what the “rights holders” demand. And yet, if you are a photographer, no such special consideration is afforded to you. The img element has no DRM and people are managing just fine, thank you. Video, apparently, is a special case …just like fonts. ahem


The subject of vendor prefixes also came up. Specifically, the looming prospect of non-webkit browsers parsing -webkit prefixed properties was raised.

I saw a pattern amongst all three subjects: the DRM proposal, Dart, and browsers implementing another browser’s vendor prefix. All three proposals were made to address a genuine problem. The proposals all suffer from varying degrees of batshit craziness but they certainly galvanised a lot of discussion.

For example, Brendan said that while Google Dart may not stand a hope in hell of supplanting JavaScript, some of the ideas it contains may well end up influencing the development of ECMAScript.

Similarly, Mozilla’s plan for vendor-prefixing certainly caused all parties to admit the problem: the W3C was moving too slow; Apple should have submitted proprietary properties for standardisation sooner; Mozilla, Microsoft, and Opera should have been innovating faster; and web developers should have been treating vendor-prefixed properties as experimental features, not stable parts of a spec.

So the proposal to do something batshit crazy and implement -webkit-prefixed CSS properties has actually had some very positive effects …but there’s no reason to actually go ahead and do it!

I tried to make this point during the audience participation part of the panel, but it was like banging my head against a brick wall. Chaals kept repeating the problem case, but I wasn’t disputing the problem; I was trying to point out that the proposed solution wouldn’t fix the problem.

It was a classic case of the same kind of thinking we saw in the SOPA proposal:

  1. Something must be done!
  2. Implementing -webkit prefixes is something.
  3. Something has been done.

The problem is that it won’t work. Adding “like Webkit” to the user-agent string will probably have much more of an effect and frankly, I don’t care if any of the browsers do that. At this point, a little bit more pissing into the bloated cesspool of user-agent strings is hardly going to matter. A browser’s user-agent string isn’t an identifier, it’s a reverse-chronological history of the web. Why not update the history booklet to include the current predilection amongst developers for Webkit browsers on mobile?

But implementing -webkit vendor prefixes? Pointless! If a developer is only building and testing their sites for one class of device or browser, simply implementing that browser’s prefixed CSS is just putting a band aid on a decapitation.

So I was kind of hoping that Mozilla would just come right out and say that maybe they wouldn’t actually go ahead and do this but hey, look at all the great discussion it generated (just like Dart, just like the DRM proposal). But sadly, no. Brendan categorically stated that the proposal was not presented in order to foment discussion. And in follow-up tweets, he wrote that he actually expected it to level the mobile browser playing field. That’s an admirably optimistic viewpoint but it’s sadly self-delusional.

And what will happen when implementing -webkit prefixes fails to level the playing field? We’ll be left with deliberately broken browsers.

Once something ships in a browser, it’s very, very hard to ever remove it. During the Dart discussion, Chris talked about the possibility of removing Dart from Chrome if developers don’t take to it. Turning to the Microsoft representative he asked rhetorically, “I mean, do you guys still ship VBScript?”

The answer?


Wednesday, March 7th, 2012

Prix Fixe

A year and a half ago, Eric wrote a great article in A List Apart called Prefix or Posthack. It’s a balanced look at vendor prefixes in CSS that concludes in their favour:

If the history of web standards has shown us anything, it’s that hacks will be necessary. By front-loading the hacks using vendor prefixes and enshrining them in the standards process, we can actually fix some of the potential problems with the process and possibly accelerate CSS development.

So the next time you find yourself grumbling about declaring the same thing four times, once for each browser, remember that the pain is temporary. It’s a little like a vaccine—the shot hurts now, true, but it’s really not that bad in comparison to the disease it prevents.

Henri disagrees. He wrote a post called Vendor Prefixes Are Hurting the Web:

In practice, vendor prefixes lead to a situation where Web author have to say the same thing in a different way to each browser. That’s the antithesis of having Web standards. Standards should enable authors to write to a standard and have it work in implementations from multiple vendors.

Daniel Glazman wrote a point-by-point rebuttal to Henri’s post called CSS vendor prefixes, an answer to Henri Sivonen that’s well worth a read. Alex also wrote a counter-argument to Henri’s post called Vendor Prefixes Are A Rousing Success that echoes some of the points Eric made in his ALA article:

The standards process needs to lag implementations, which means that we need spaces for implementations to lead in. CSS vendor prefixes are one of the few shining examples of this working in practice.

Alex’s co-worker Paul disagrees. He recently wrote Vendor Prefixes Are Not Developer-friendly:

  1. Prefixes are not developer-friendly.
  2. Recent features would have been in a much better state without prefixes.
  3. Implementor maneuverability is not hampered without prefixes.

All of this would have remained a fairly academic discussion but for a bombshell dropped by Tantek at a face-to-face meeting of the CSS Working Group in Paris:

At this point we’re trying to figure out which and how many -webkit- prefix properties to actually implement support for in Mozilla.

The superficial issue is that web developers have been implementing -webkit- properties without then adding the non-prefixed standardised version (and without adding the corresponding prefixes of other vendors). The more fundamental problem is that while vendor prefixes were intended to introduce experimental features until those features became standardised, the reality is that the prefixed version ends up being supported in perpetuity. Nobody is happy about this situation but that’s the unfortunate reality.

Among the unhappy voices are:

Once again, Eric sought to bring clarity to the situation in the form of an article on A List Apart, this time publishing an interview with Tantek. Alex also popped up again, writing a post called Misdirection which addresses what he feels are some fundamental assumptions being made in the interview.

Finally, Mozilla engineer Robert O’Callahan—who I chatted with briefly at Kiwi Foo Camp about the vendor prefix situation—wrote about Alternatives To Supporting -webkit Prefixes In Other Engines in which he makes clear that evangelism efforts like Christian’s, while entirely laudable, aren’t a realistic solution to the problem.

It’s all a bit of a mess really, with lots of angry finger-pointing: at Apple, at Mozilla, at web developers, at the W3C…

My own feelings match those of Eric, who wrote:

I’d love to be proven wrong, but I have to assume the vendors will push ahead with this regardless. … I don’t mean to denigrate or undermine any of the efforts I mentioned before—they’re absolutely worth doing even if every non-WebKit browser starts supporting -webkit- properties next week. If nothing else, it will serve as evidence of your commitment to professional craftsmanship.

Friday, November 18th, 2011

Vendor Prefixes Are A Rousing Success | Infrequently Noted

Alex weighs in on the newly-reopened debate on vendor prefixes, roundly squashing Henri’s concerns.

Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

CSS vendor prefixes, an answer to Henri Sivonen -

Daniel responds to Henri’s call-to-arms on vendor prefixes. While he stridently disagrees with most of what Henri suggests, there is also overlapping agreement: they both want vendor prefixes to ship only in experimental builds, not stable browser releases.

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

Vendor Prefixes Are Hurting the Web

This is a very thoughtful piece by Henri on vendor prefixes and it’s well worth a read …however the thought of one browser implementing support for vendor-prefixed properties intended for a different browser does make me quite quesy.

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010

A List Apart: Articles: Prefix or Posthack

An excellent argument in favour of vendor prefixes in CSS, from Eric.