Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A poignant example is all of the non-standard -webkit CSS extensions Apple uses for the Gallery demo (http://www.apple.com/html5/showcase/gallery/):

   #gallery-demo .grid2d figure:nth-child(5)  { -webkit-transform: translateX(-241px) translateY(-3px) scale(.45) translateZ(1000px);}
If you accept -webkit CSS extensions as a standard, then Internet Explorer has supported the CSS opacity attribute for years:

   filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(Opacity=80);
These extensions are not part of the CSS3 or HTML5 spec.


Actually, transform is in the CSS3 working spec[0]. Until the standard reaches the "Candidate Recommendation" stage, the W3C encourages browser vendors to use prefixes (-webkit, -moz, etc).

DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha, on the other hand, wouldn't be part of CSS3, and uses its own specific syntax.

[0]: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-3d-transforms/#transform-property


Is there any technical reason why using webkit's browser specific css attribute and firefox's browser specific css attribute is any better than using IE's browser specific css attribute?


`filter:` syntax isn't compatible with CSS tokenizer (IE<8 is unparseable without special tokenizer state set by the parser, IE8 uses non-CSS syntax in CSS string).

IE's transform filter uses only matrix, which scares the hell out of designers.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: