Alex weighs in on the newly-reopened debate on vendor prefixes, roundly squashing Henri’s concerns.
I absolutely love this in-depth history of the web, written in a snappy, snarky tone.
In the beginning, there was no CSS.
This was very bad.
Even if you—like me—lived through all this stuff, I guarantee there’ll still be something in here you didn’t know.
Rachel follows up on my recent post about CSS grid in old IE with her thoughts.
As Jeremy notes, the usefulness of a tool like Autoprefixer is diminishing, which is a good thing. It is becoming far easier to code in a way that supports all browsers, where support means usable in an appropriate way for the technology the user has in front of them. Embrace that, and be glad for the fact that we can reduce complexity based on the increasing interoperability of CSS in our browsers.
If you’ve ever wondered what it would be like to be a fly on the wall at a CSS Working Group meeting, Richard has the inside scoop.
The consensus building is vital. Representatives from all the major browsers were in the room, collaborating closely by proposing ideas and sharing implementations. But most fundamentally they were agreeing together what should go in the specifications, because what goes in the specs is what gets built and ends up in the hands of users.
This seems like a sensible way for browsers to approach implementing vendor-prefixed CSS properties.
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.
IE11 doesn’t support CSS grid.
Talking to the browser makers about vendor prefixes.
Hyperlinks relating to CSS vendor prefixes.