undefined | Better HN

0 pointsManishearth9y ago0 comments

FWIW clip-path is specced and in CR stage right now. I think it's okay to implement it provided that there is an understanding that any further changes are reflected even if it breaks existing code using the new property.

All browsers do this. Firefox implements around 88 properties (30 of these are "logical properties", which aren't exactly new properties) that Chrome doesn't[1] and Chrome implements around 68 properties that Firefox doesn't[2].

The numbers are a bit skewed here. My method of collecting the list of "properties that Firefox implements" included preffed-off properties, but the same is not true for Chrome, so for example the `grid` property shows up as implemented in Firefox but not Chrome even though both have it behind a pref/flag.

However, there are some properties implemented in Firefox without being behind a pref (ruby-align, scroll-snap-foo, image-orientation are examples).

-------------------

I do feel that in general Blink does push a lot of nonstandard (or not on the standards path) features into the web at times. But I don't have anything to back that assertion up.

Blink is being interoperable in this particular case.

[1]: https://manishearth.github.io/css-properties-list/?stylo=sho...

[2]: https://manishearth.github.io/css-properties-list/?stylo=sho...

0 comments

erlehmann_9y ago

Clarification: My comment was not primarily about browser developers, it was about web developers that do not care about interoperability – and either do not test in non-Webkit/Blink browsers or declare that for some reason (e.g. marketshare, “it is just an experiment”), other browsers are irrelevant in their specific case.

ManishearthOP9y ago

Ah, fair point. Yeah, this irks me a lot.

lukehaas9y ago

It's important for web developers to experiment with new browser features. Browser vendors encourage this as it can help them with crushing bugs early and refining their specs.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse