Comments on: CSS Gradients, Transforms, Animations, and Masks http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/25/css-gradients-transforms-animations-and-masks/ Sat, 05 Jul 2008 04:43:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: tech.no.logi.es http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/25/css-gradients-transforms-animations-and-masks/#comment-739380 tech.no.logi.es Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:28:11 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2448#comment-739380 Glad I could be of use as your counter example. I made the 3D rotation effect just as a demo. The same obnoxious things could be done quite easily with Flash these days, and people keep it to a minimal, so I'm not too worried that CSS transitions/animations/what-have-you are going to be cast upon the majority of the web like some sort of plague. We'll be fine. And the people who have legitimate use for such things will benefit (and remember: the web isn't just for informational web pages anymore, so "legitimate" is relative). Zachary http://tech.no.logi.es/ Glad I could be of use as your counter example. I made the 3D rotation effect just as a demo. The same obnoxious things could be done quite easily with Flash these days, and people keep it to a minimal, so I’m not too worried that CSS transitions/animations/what-have-you are going to be cast upon the majority of the web like some sort of plague. We’ll be fine. And the people who have legitimate use for such things will benefit (and remember: the web isn’t just for informational web pages anymore, so “legitimate” is relative).

Zachary
http://tech.no.logi.es/

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/25/css-gradients-transforms-animations-and-masks/#comment-720855 Anonymous Mon, 12 May 2008 10:37:39 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2448#comment-720855 Good to see that Apple are still pushing the envelope a little, yet at the same time are still able to be fully standards-compliant, unlike MS. For all those who are comparing these new "candidate recommendations" with the bad old days of the Browser Wars, note that MS are introducing an (almost) entirely new HTML tag to help handle their lack of standards support, which is only slightly better than their ActiveX / filters etc. Good to see that Apple are still pushing the envelope a little, yet at the same time are still able to be fully standards-compliant, unlike MS.
For all those who are comparing these new “candidate recommendations” with the bad old days of the Browser Wars, note that MS are introducing an (almost) entirely new HTML tag to help handle their lack of standards support, which is only slightly better than their ActiveX / filters etc.

]]> By: eXtaz http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/25/css-gradients-transforms-animations-and-masks/#comment-713233 eXtaz Fri, 02 May 2008 15:23:13 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2448#comment-713233 That is great. Thanks for tops. That is great. Thanks for tops.

]]> By: Kevin Ansfield http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/25/css-gradients-transforms-animations-and-masks/#comment-713134 Kevin Ansfield Fri, 02 May 2008 13:20:04 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2448#comment-713134 Rik's post above is on the money. This definately looks to be aimed more at the mobile/iphone/ipod touch market than the mainstream desktop web browsers. Sure, the additions are nice, but I think Apple have a bit more sense than to add these with an expectation that they will become standard for the desktop. Apple-only apps and mobiles only I'm thinking. Rik’s post above is on the money. This definately looks to be aimed more at the mobile/iphone/ipod touch market than the mainstream desktop web browsers.

Sure, the additions are nice, but I think Apple have a bit more sense than to add these with an expectation that they will become standard for the desktop. Apple-only apps and mobiles only I’m thinking.

]]> By: Stevie D http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/25/css-gradients-transforms-animations-and-masks/#comment-709672 Stevie D Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:33:10 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2448#comment-709672 <em>SLEE:</em> <blockquote>this is all well and good but what about backward compatibility? ( i wish ie6 would just die)</blockquote> The good think is that it is perfectly backwards compatible. IE6 will render it as though that line wasn't there! So as long as you aren't relying on the feature, but are using it just as an enhancement for the lucky few, it will be absolutely fine. SLEE:

this is all well and good but what about backward compatibility?
( i wish ie6 would just die)

The good think is that it is perfectly backwards compatible. IE6 will render it as though that line wasn’t there! So as long as you aren’t relying on the feature, but are using it just as an enhancement for the lucky few, it will be absolutely fine.

]]> By: SLEE http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/25/css-gradients-transforms-animations-and-masks/#comment-708863 SLEE Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:20:54 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2448#comment-708863 this is all well and good but what about backward compatibility? ( i wish ie6 would just die) this is all well and good but what about backward compatibility?
( i wish ie6 would just die)

]]> By: Stevie D http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/25/css-gradients-transforms-animations-and-masks/#comment-708801 Stevie D Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:40:12 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2448#comment-708801 I think the main difference between proprietary CSS extensions and the browser wars of the last century is in terms of compatibility. If a developer used <code>marquee</code> or <code>blink</code>, or CSS attributes like <code>bordercolor</code> there was a pretty good chance he'd be expecting all browsers to display the same, or would block/ignore anybody without his preferred browser. If a developer uses <code>-webkit</code> or <code>-o</code> prefixed attributes, he is acknowledging that this is cutting-edge stuff that will only work on the latest version of a particular browser, and it is a golden nugget for the users of those browsers, not a critical part of the page. Other attributes can still be applied to give a well-defined rendering in all other browsers. I think the main difference between proprietary CSS extensions and the browser wars of the last century is in terms of compatibility.

If a developer used marquee or blink, or CSS attributes like bordercolor there was a pretty good chance he’d be expecting all browsers to display the same, or would block/ignore anybody without his preferred browser.

If a developer uses -webkit or -o prefixed attributes, he is acknowledging that this is cutting-edge stuff that will only work on the latest version of a particular browser, and it is a golden nugget for the users of those browsers, not a critical part of the page. Other attributes can still be applied to give a well-defined rendering in all other browsers.

]]> By: Jon http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/25/css-gradients-transforms-animations-and-masks/#comment-708705 Jon Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:50:25 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2448#comment-708705 I don't really understand all the hate for the W3C. Many of the CSS working group's most active members are not "bickering web designers", but representatives from the various browser vendors: Anne Van Kesteren from Opera, David Baron and Fantasai from Mozilla, and yes, David Hyatt from Apple. They have done a lot of good work defining modules for CSS 3 which already have partial implementations in existing browsers, accessible via the same <code>-webkit</code> style identifiers as these new extensions. I won't pretend that the progress of the standards isn't slow, but the major obstacle to the progress of CSS has not been the bureaucracy of the W3C, but Microsoft and Internet Explorer. IE's dawdling development pace and dominant market share ensured the work of the W3C long meant little in reality. Now however, things may be changing. IE is back in active development and, under pressure from the EU, Microsoft are having to at least make a show of supporting standards, with IE 8 being CSS 2.1 compliant by default. The W3C and the various browser vendors now have a great opportunity to turn up the heat on Microsoft. If they got the most important CSS 3 modules published as recommendations and proper implementations available in production browsers, then it would apply pressure to MS to do the same, or appear to be neglecting web standards. As it is, MS can say "CSS 3 isn't finished, and nobody else fully supports it anyway, so why should we?" And what do Apple do with this opportunity? They start hacking on non-standard extensions to Webkit just because it's easy to do so and gives iPhone developers some shiny effects to play with. If Apple continue in this way, they risk harming the progress of the open web, and dooming us to a future where the proprietary likes of Flash and Silverlight are the only technologies available for doing useful work. I don’t really understand all the hate for the W3C. Many of the CSS working group’s most active members are not “bickering web designers”, but representatives from the various browser vendors: Anne Van Kesteren from Opera, David Baron and Fantasai from Mozilla, and yes, David Hyatt from Apple. They have done a lot of good work defining modules for CSS 3 which already have partial implementations in existing browsers, accessible via the same -webkit style identifiers as these new extensions.

I won’t pretend that the progress of the standards isn’t slow, but the major obstacle to the progress of CSS has not been the bureaucracy of the W3C, but Microsoft and Internet Explorer. IE’s dawdling development pace and dominant market share ensured the work of the W3C long meant little in reality. Now however, things may be changing. IE is back in active development and, under pressure from the EU, Microsoft are having to at least make a show of supporting standards, with IE 8 being CSS 2.1 compliant by default.

The W3C and the various browser vendors now have a great opportunity to turn up the heat on Microsoft. If they got the most important CSS 3 modules published as recommendations and proper implementations available in production browsers, then it would apply pressure to MS to do the same, or appear to be neglecting web standards. As it is, MS can say “CSS 3 isn’t finished, and nobody else fully supports it anyway, so why should we?” And what do Apple do with this opportunity? They start hacking on non-standard extensions to Webkit just because it’s easy to do so and gives iPhone developers some shiny effects to play with.

If Apple continue in this way, they risk harming the progress of the open web, and dooming us to a future where the proprietary likes of Flash and Silverlight are the only technologies available for doing useful work.

]]> By: Tim http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/25/css-gradients-transforms-animations-and-masks/#comment-708304 Tim Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:04:04 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2448#comment-708304 What's really funny is that IE has had these available for years via an activeX plugin using what it called filters (IE specific - http://webfx.eae.net/tools/filtertool.html) plus the transform activeX for things like skew etc. Granted it uses really weird syntax and this looks a lot easier to use, the only difference this time around is that by putting the -webkit prefix that are explicitly stating it's a webkit specific extension (which isn't a new thing, refer -mozilla and -opera) and it's natively integrated into the browser. So is it really that cool or is it an attempt to standardize something that another browser introduced eons ago ala XmlHttpRequest? Looks to me a bit like history is repeating itself. What’s really funny is that IE has had these available for years via an activeX plugin using what it called filters (IE specific - http://webfx.eae.net/tools/filtertool.html) plus the transform activeX for things like skew etc. Granted it uses really weird syntax and this looks a lot easier to use, the only difference this time around is that by putting the -webkit prefix that are explicitly stating it’s a webkit specific extension (which isn’t a new thing, refer -mozilla and -opera) and it’s natively integrated into the browser.

So is it really that cool or is it an attempt to standardize something that another browser introduced eons ago ala XmlHttpRequest? Looks to me a bit like history is repeating itself.

]]> By: NetNerd85 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/04/25/css-gradients-transforms-animations-and-masks/#comment-707599 NetNerd85 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:47:54 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2448#comment-707599 Cool but no. Cool but no.

]]>