Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
CSS3.info Launched
css3.info — Joost de valk, who brought the CSS3 preview page, has just put online CSS3.info, a site dedicated to information about CSS3. So if you are interested in learning more about CSS3 dig this link.
gen0c1de- 891 diggs
- digg it
- Yarnage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Sweet. I can't wait until CSS3 is finally implemented in all web browsers... unfortuantely I have a feeling it'll take IE quite a few years.
- ThankTheCheese, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15problem is even if the new IE does have full support of CSS3, we can't just assume evryone is using it and abandon CSS2 browsers. I think it will be at leas 5 years before we can officially say CSS3 is here, which is a pitty because some of those styles are damn tempting.
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -19/+6Although these are "nice" effect for people using the correct browsers, they are all browser-specific hacks. using a -moz or -webkit css command is NOT standards design.
Another thing: The site showing these things off is piss poor. The guy wouldnt know what good advertising distribution and lout was if it smacked him in the face... Oh and giving screenshots of all the features as a reference would go a long way too... rather than just assuming everyones going to be using the same browser as you...
To sum up, the author is a tool who doesnt respect cross browser compatability in the slightest. - Alegis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@podgey 22, Why so harsh on the author?
It's a CSS3 preview, naturally those using the browsers that support CSS3 will be interested.
He ain't forced to show screenshots of IE as he wishes to demonstrate a site with CSS3 code, not a screenshot showcase.
He also describes what mozilla users would be seeing in case you use another browser.
Nice site, I love some of the table code. And if the browser doesn't support the neat code, it displays normal tables. Fine for me to start using it. - tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"using a -moz or -webkit css command is NOT standards design."
Except that the standard calls for browser-specific styles to follow the "-vendorName-styleName" pattern. Though they may be browser-specific, they ARE implemented in a standards-compliant way. - GlassCasket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree with you, but it's going to take a REALLY long time before every browser adopts CSS3. Since not even al browsers support all the CSS we have out now. So that simply means some browsers will suck even more because they're so far behind.
- jadedknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6These are great, My fav. so far is how easy it is to make multi columns out of text! Just two lines of CSS code!!
-moz-column-width: 13em;
-moz-column-gap: 1em;
Awesome! To bad it will most likely take a while for these to be supported in a wide range of browsers...but ya never know!- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3-moz-* commands will never be cross browser which is why implementing them like this is foolish... If things carry on like this we're going to see the separation of the internet into "IE and Firefox" groups of websites where one design wont fit both browsers...
- centinall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8using -moz-* and -webkit-* makes great sense. They're not supposed to be cross browser compatible. They are an implementation of how the developers of such frameworks have thus far implemented the standard. Using something like -moz-opacity makes much more sense than just opacity right now. When the standard is agreed upon, the framework developers can then implement the style to the standard without screwing previous usage of the style.
Anyway, I like seeing what they plan on doing with CSS3. - jinexile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You're wrong Podgey, there are plenty of -moz- styles that have been implimented in the spec, -moz-opacity is an example of one, Mozilla often impliments popular styles before a spec reaches recommendation status and for safety reasons they impliment it with the standard compliant method of prefixing them with a vendor tag in case the style doesn't make it to the final spec.
- dharm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3right now there doesnt apear to be any new material... so we are just digging the preview that was up ages ago? makes sense... -_-;;
- Lacero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I'll sleep on this til 2010.
- spin-docta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I wonder if one can use the shadow for div tags instead of text?
- Mcaruso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1See this draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-box-shadow
- andrethegiant, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1"So if you are interested in learning more about CSS3 dig this link."
what the hell is dig? ohhhh, digg. - JeremyCade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Hmm.. Multi column goodness :)
Now if we can just get everyone to implement css2 first........ - zemoth, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0I WANT IT NOW NOW NOW, the things in CSS3 is the kind of stuff that Ive been waiting for, dynamically change the background dimensions!!!!
- boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sweet. I needed RGBA colors, but it doesn't work with #RGBA or #RRGGBBAA. This came up at the exact right time, showing me how to do it. :D
- Dezynergod, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6This makes me want to touch myself.
- Shinglor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"So if you are interested in learning more about CSS3 dig this link."
Don't tell me how to digg, man. I will continue to digg only stories with odd numbers of vowels regardless of what you or society thinks I should or shouldn't do. - johanm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1isnt this a re-repost?
good stuff though - Xilon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Reported as old news and dugg... Now I'll just go off and hibernate. Someone wake me up when it gets implemented.
- YellowBook, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Made for AdSense.
No digg. - zephc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A lot of the things that are purported to work in WebKit don't in the latest version of Safari. You can update WebKit from the nightly builds, but I can;t target something that my customer's don't have access to (or don;t know how to get access to it). I haven't seen anything on the WebKit dev blog about a new Safari release with better CSS3
- trovster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I can't trust a site on CSS when the markup is that bad.
Like this page? Bookmark it:[br/]
[div class="right_float" align="right"]
[a href="/sitemap.html"]Site Map[/a] |
[a href="/contact.html"]Contact[/a] | - Syntaxis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Well even though he's Dutch, his English could be better. And I'm Dutch myself. But besides that it's a nice little bit of information. It should be updated though, I'm missing a lot of CSS3 information on his website that really should be there. If only he'd take down those banners... this makes it look like he only posted it on Digg to get himself enough €€€ for a new bike or something.
- srg13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If only IE would implement this sooner than in 6 years. border-corner-image and border-image would be so useful for rounded corners with shadows and so on.
But maybe (hopefully) we won't have to worry about coding for IE by then. I long for the day when they have less than 10% market share... - andyc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This site is pretty uninspiring given the exciting potential of its subject but should be commended for existing at all.
I will certainly use a bit of CSS3 in my next web project. It's easy to incorporate a little trendy transparency, for example, without adversely affecting the viewing experience for users with less-capable browsers. Semi-tranparent elements that are allowed to scroll over a static background, anyone? - blagoaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I hope they'll be mindful to keep it small. It may be counterintuitive, but sometimes a standard is better when it's small enough to be easily understood and utilized by everyone.
Given a choice, I'd even advocate breaking backwards compatibility to achieve that. Perhaps they could carefully fold new functionality into a few core features which are found from experience to be the most useful. (The web's been popular for just 10 years - it's ok to have missteps now) - jtrost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not so impressed. The majority of the new additions are exclusive to Firefox, which really isn't useful to designers because we all know that despite Fifrefox's popularity, the vast majority of Internet users still use IE, which makes most of those new CSS properties useless. The only thing that impressed me is the media query. Creating good looking liquid layouts is about to get a heck of a lot easier.
- JoelMMCC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They’re not exclusive to Firefox. It’s just that the Gecko rendering engine has implemented more of them than other rendering engines (though Webkit [the engine for Safari 2+] is way up there as well) at this time.
Do keep in mind the difference between a browser and a web rendering engine. A web browser is just the user interface wrapped around the rendering engine. Firefox, Netscape 7+, Camino (Mac OS X), and Seamonkey all have different interfaces and user capabilities, but they will all render web pages identically (within certain OS limits such as availability of fonts), because all of them use the Gecko rendering engine. Netscape 8 for Windows by itself, and Firefox for Windows with the IE Tab extension, will both let you toggle between two different rendering engines (Gecko and Trident, the WinIE engine [also used by NeoPlanet and similar browsers]) within a single tab, very handy for seeing how a site will look in both common engines. E-Mail programs also use these engines for rendering HTML E-Mail. Outlook and Outlook Express for Windows both use Trident, of course, while Thunderbird, Netscape 6 & 7 Messenger [mail], Seamonkey Mail, etc. use Gecko, and Mac OS X Mail uses Webkit.
Other engines include Tasman (Mac IE and Entourage: Tasman 2 in Mac IE 5 was the first engine to achieve greater than 90% compatibility with CSS1, but has since fallen way behind, and even Microsoft no longer supports it except for its use in Entourage [the mini-Outlook in Office for Mac]), KHTML (Konquerer, which implements some CSS3 stuff that even Gecko doesn’t!), Presto (Opera), and iCab (iCab 3, a Mac browser and the first ACID2-compliant engine publically available, and also the only browser still supported for Mac OS Classic -- Safari 2 [or, rather Webkit] is the first major ACID2-compliant browser [rendering engine] from a major company, and Opera 9's Presto is the first [and so far only] ACID2-compliant engine available for Windows).
To more fully illustrate: you can create a new blank worksheet in Microsoft Excel for Windows (any version) and turn it into a Web browser! All you have to do is insert the proper ActiveX control. Any Windows will have the Microsoft Web Browser control, which is the Trident engine, and if you have Firefox or other Gecko browser installed, the Gecko engine is likewise available as a control. You could even put both on the same spreadsheet! By adjusting parameters, you could disable portions of the user interface, and replace them with controls and cells on the spreadsheet itself: you could make a particular cell be the Location box, for instance, where you type the URL you want to browse to.
The important thing here is that web developers need to stop thinking in terms of BROWSERS (such as detecting them) and instead think in terms of ENGINES. And, even more to the point, think in terms of engine CAPABILITIES. You need to use some W3C DOM in your JavaScript? Don’t detect the browser and compare against a list of browsers that you know support the W3C DOM. New W3C-compatible browsers will come out, and your code won’t support them. Instead, test for the actual ability to use the W3C DOM itself. Ditto for other capabilities.
For CSS3 goodies using the experimental tags (“-moz-…” etc.), do feel free to use them, but only for eye candy ways that won’t adversely affect the actual functionality of your site for engines that don’t support them. And do try to support their effect on as many engines as possible. For instance, if you want a box to be 25% transparent (75% opaque), use code like this:
opacity: 0.75; -moz-opacity: 0.75; -webkit-opacity: 0.75; filter: Alpha(opacity=75);
This makes it work for CSS3-compliant engines [including Gecko 1.7+]; older Gecko; Webkit [Safari]; and Trident [Win IE 4 or later], respectively. But don’t rely on it if you need to read something through the transparent object, because you’d be shutting out users of web engines that can’t support it. Use it for decoration only.
- JoelMMCC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They’re not exclusive to Firefox. It’s just that the Gecko rendering engine has implemented more of them than other rendering engines (though Webkit [the engine for Safari 2+] is way up there as well) at this time.
- kevin45, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Why do these CSS sites always look terrible?
- blagoaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0CSS demonstration sites tend to be made by and for developers. Wait for the tools, education, and interest to catch up amongst artists.
- blagoaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually, I think I posted too soon there and sort of missed the point.
If someone wants a site to look nice, they'll use whatever they feel like and probably won't tell you about it. Maybe they do use CSS. You might say that from an aesthetic standpoint, they've got their priorities in order.
Now if someone's trying to use CSS, and is advertising that fact, they'd probably be willing to use it where it's not even appropriate for the sake of learning and demonstration. Making a good page is only a secondary goal. - JoelMMCC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, that CSS Zen Garden site (http://csszengarden.com) sure is ugly and unimpressive.
- foobar5892, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This is old and probably a dupe. What's the point?
- calande, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This is lame. It's only Firefox proprietary code, I don't use Firefox, this is lame :(
- jimb0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is good. A nice thing too see the future features all in one place without having to look around. I like the opacity setting, cool.
- kevin45, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My point is, if the site looks like ***** and is loaded with AdSense... I'm not going to be interested in it. Make it look nice so I may feel inclined to use some CSS3 (which is a waste right now anyway).
- zelot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you know we have already seen this kind of thing happen before, yes some people will go for web standards but quick and dirty is also sometimes acceptable.
We saw this circa late 90's with the whole.... *this page is best viewed with XXXXX browser*
nothing new here... - cg0def, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1css is the future of the web weather MS want's it or not. And if IE does not support css properly then there is no reason why anyone should use it. As far as the browser war goes it's finally to the point where a solution wins if it's better. There is IE for MacOS but I doubt that most MacOS users ever run this crap. Who's fault is it? Why Microsoft's of course. Pretty much the same fate awaits them on the Windows arena even if takes longer. That is unless they face the facts and start brining some of those improvements that supposedly gave them world dominance.
Oh and stop bitching about mozilla tags. It wasn't that long ago when people were complaining about IE only features of HTML. Atleast the Mozilla only tags make perfect sence untill CSS3 is finalized.
Oh and for those who believe that css3 is useless check out the css zen garden site. Yes that's css2.0 but if you can do that with css 2.0 then imagine what 3.0 can do ... - paularms, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I love how this is an entire site dedicated to only 13 style properties of CSS3.
What about counters? filters? ruby? math? etc... All of the most interesting stuff has been left off. - v3xt0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15 year old spec that is still not implemented or adopted by anyone.
Let's write W3C-compliant CSS3 code that no browser is capable of rendering, uhh... OK!- Knowltey, on 06/04/2008, -0/+0That's actually how I do it. I write the main stylesheet in CSS3, there are only a handful of things you can't do yet, but for the majority CSS selectors and properties are either recognized by the browser or completely ignored. Then I feed out special stylesheets to various rendering engines for fixed, all CSS3 valid.
- eryx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We need a law that makes people upgrade their browsers to support css3 by a certain date or
YOUR OFF THE NET!!
;) - kazoom123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lets hope it gets adopted quickly
- v3xt0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's been 5 years, it ain't gonna happen! =/
- crossers, on 07/18/2008, -0/+0sweet! very useful information! I think it's quickly!
http://www.shpe-sac.org
http://www.ocflex.com/
http://www.trgovinca.org
http://www.chasr.org/
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by