What is Digg?53 Comments
- CrazedGeek, on 10/11/2007, -3/+29WebKit impresses me more and more every day.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17It's amazing to me how many people are whining about this being non-standard CSS, unsupported by browsers other than Safari 3.
You're all missing the damn point. This is useful specifically because Safari 3 supports it-- if you're doing an iPhone-specific interface (even for an existing site), this is how you make it look like an iPhone app. It doesn't matter if Firefox can't see it, because the interface in question isn't *for* Firefox. - justelite, on 10/11/2007, -7/+15I still don't have a iPhone...
- synotic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7This is actually the proper convention and the "standards way" of doing things. Like you said, CSS3 isn't in the recommendation stage yet, and is still incomplete and can change at any point. The idea is that the proposed properties shouldn't be implemented until their full details have been decided. If Safari were to simply use the border-image property, and then people started using it more and more, the details of its implementation would become a pseudo-standard. Other browsers would be forced to support Safari's way of doing things, even if it weren't in the final standard. Now there's the issue of supporting the standard and supporting legacy code.
It is necessary to have a 'webkit' namespace (just as Firefox/Mozilla browsers have the 'moz' namespace) so that it's clear that it's a Safari or Firefox -interpretation- of the standard.
We've seen this time and time again with Internet Explorer and Netscape using the same property and method names but with divergent functionality.
Once the standard's been nailed down, browsers can safely and properly use the new properties.
It might seem a little wonky, but sometimes not sticking with the (nonstandard) standard is the way to go :). - UnConeD, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13This seems like an implementation of the proposed CSS3 border-image property:
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-border-image
This is really cool and lets CSS designers eliminate a lot of ugly div-soup for things like rounded corners. I can only applaud Apple's efforts with Safari... after Microsoft crippled the web's progress for half a decade with IE6, Apple's taking a lead in giving web developers better tools.
More CSS3 demos can be found at http://www.css3.info/preview/ . - digga, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6There is a draft CSS3 property that will be essentially the same minus the vendor-specific prefix, so they *are* doing it the right way.
- anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Anybody who wants people to be able to use their site on the iPhone.
- nlogax, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6They ARE following the standards, including the standard for implementing vendor specific stuff, just like Mozilla.
-moz-border-radius, -moz-opacity (done now, so it's just opacity), -moz-column-count, etc.
When it's finalized the -webkit- prefix will be dropped, just like in the past. - chris9902, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7nobody that cares anyway.
- lhand1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Keep in mind this post is written for creating buttons for the iPhone.
- meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Anyone know of a cross platform alternative to this? I've tried it in css using three absolutely positioned images; a left border, a right border and a centre image which stretches horizontally to size. The problem is that if you stretch the middle image to a percentage then there's sometimes gaps between it and the border images.
Any ideas? /css noob - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Why the hell not? It's 2007. Javascript is part of the platform.
- meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Chances are that if you're going to write an app for the iPhone you wouldn't want to use it on other browsers anyway. For starters, you're limited to a very small window and a unique interface.
Not saying i agree with using non-standards but if you're writing for an iPhone then you'll *only* be writing that page for an iPhone and not for other browsers - parsap, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It's Safari 3
- matthewkrivanek, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3@meatmcguffin,
Currently the border-image property is only present in WebKit browsers. I can't seem to find an alternative in mozilla or konqueror yet. I'm experimenting with the multiple backgrounds / background-origin to see if I can achieve a similar effect. I think if you've taken a look at my code, you can see my use of the border-image property implemented the way the spec states.
Additional reading: http://www.css3.info/preview/border-image.html
History of WebKit and all browsers that use it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit
Cheers,
[mk] - Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6It would be much better if they actually *used* the border-image property, rather than adding their own browser-specific work-around. It still forces people to create safari-specific pages, rather than relying on one and the same standard.
Don't get me wrong -- it's nice that they're starting to push for CSS3, but they should be doing it by actually trying to follow the standard (which, admittedly, is hard while it's still a draft). - zeeky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2because safari is the only browser that exists on the iphone so if youre developing for the iphone theres no sense in even caring about how your page looks in other browsers
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"all those pages"? we're talking about a stylesheet or two per site.
This is really not a big deal. - matthewkrivanek, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2@prattboy,
From what I'm told, Apple developers branched off from version 3's development so the iPhone is running some flavor of Safari somewhere between version 2 and 3.
Besides much of the onmouseevent handling being disabled because of the touchpad (which sucks), everything pretty much renders in "iSafari" as it does in Safari 3. - nlogax, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2FYI: http://www.css3.info/preview/
- Elranzer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Does it work with Konqueror?
- 00011000, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1touché
- abandonedhero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sure it's not hard, but it's a piece of crap - unless of course you love security holes and instability on a browser that isn't even worthy of the tag "Beta."
- CrazedGeek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2*****? It appears to work quite well.
Non-standard? Tell that to -moz-border-radius.
Proprietary? WebKit is open source. - Alex.w, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The guy is right. If 1.3% of users are on Safari, how many are on the worthless almost unusable beta of version 3?
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Lots, text-shadow is all over the place now
- prattboy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Is the iPhone running Safari 3 yet? I was under the impression that it was only Safari 2, at least at this point.
It's possible to replicate something similar in other modern browsers using the sliding doors technique: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/slidingdoors/ - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Not if you're specifically targeting the iPhone (a la iPhone "apps"), no?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7It's not hard to get Safari 3, guy.
- Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Because it's bad form, it breaks graceful degradation, and because it forces people to use javascript even when they don't want to (and there are plenty of good reasons for not wanting it).
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well that's a pretty helpful link, thanks for the post.
- mrBitch, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4...err it just so happens that Safari 3 ( via webkit ) is just implementing STANDARDS that will be included as part of CSS3 :
See : http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-border-image
in other words - you are an idiot. - meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Thanks for that pal! Appreciate it.
So far i've experimented with tables with background images which worked perfectly in safari but nothing else, tables with images which worked fine in firefox but nothing else, multiple tables which nearly worked in everything, absolute css which very nearly worked in everything but IE and now this safari-specific hack.
Why, oh why do we not have a unified engine yet? - ronaldpoi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"An iPhone"
- Alex.w, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1If this was an IE only activex filter this guy would have +bazilion diggs for the exact same comment
- Skeuomorph, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2People who like their browser to pass the ACID tests.
- slapthemonkey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I dont have iPhone as yet.
- Fduch, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2That's just ***** non-standard proprietary extensoin.
- anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Which, since other browsers just ignore these CSS properties, they do.
- Fduch, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Wow! ***** non-standard proprietary extensoins are so exciting!
- Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3The problem is that it falls into the classical IE trap: by not using the standard, it forces people to write pages "the wrong way," which means that it will be much harder to switch to doing it the right way in the future.
If they start out by using standard CSS, then the pages that work today will continue to work tomorrow, rather than forcing everyone to rewrite their pages at some point in the future. - franksands, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Never break href links. You should never use href="#" and depend on javascript to make your links work.
- prockcore, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Embrace, Extend.
- Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1...except that they're not using the standard to do so (see that -webkit prefix?). In other words, no, this is not a standard extension -- it's Webkit-specific, and that's a bad thing.
What they *should* have done was to support the border-image property directly. - thailand1972, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3UnConeD, thing is - you have to develop for all browsers, not just Safari. It's fine using these Safari-only features so long as they degrade well in other browsers.
- bishbashbosh, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Not a bad idea for sites that expect most traffic to come from low bandwidth connections.
Apart from that, waste of time. - Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I understand that -- it's just that this leaves a bunch of CSS cruft in Webkit that will be obsolete in a year or two.
Either they abandon the -webkit extension in favour of the correct CSS3 property, at which point all those pages need to be recoded, or they leave all their deprecated extensions in, leading to uneccesary bloat. Neither is a good choice. - JacobParker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Are u the guy who owns Digg & Diggnation?
- Yareking, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2keep it this way men you will be happy later
- xevidentx, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1go away iphone
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is