Property -moz-border-radius doesn't exist

Property -moz-border-radius doesn’t exist : 20px 20px

I am SICK of seeing this! I used the W3C unicorn validator, which checks CSS3 and this still came up. I feel like a moron saying that my site validates and then having the check fail (even though I know I’m right). :mad:

Is there anything that will validate this correctly? Should I just take the links off the site? Can someone help me cope with this??

Rawr, suggestions please! :sick:

this might help

yeah, but keep in mind that if you want to support older versions of moz you still need to KEEP the proprietary prefix. Maybe W3C unicorn people are getting a little zealous. If that was your only error I wouldn’t let it get to me.

A propietary prefix is not the concern of W3C. So it’s only fair you seeing that :slight_smile:

Otherwise, you could consider dropping all prefixes and think about gracefull degradation, if validation is the bigger issue for you.

They do recognize their usage, though, so it is a bit weird that their validator is not set to overlook them.

Anyhow, we all just understand that these vendor properties are common and quite reasonable to use, even though they are not strictly part of CSS. IMHO, validation is not about pride but just a way to check that you haven’t made any critical coding errors. As long as you know you haven’t made any real errors, what’s the problem?

Overlooking something when you validate… That doesn’t sound so good.

Also, think of the false sense of “it’s CSS 2.1 valid” a validator could convey by overlooking a rule just because it’s prefixed. What if the said rule it’s badly written, even from the vendor’s implementation point of view? Should the validator include verifications for any prefixes?

So, no. A message like the one the OP is complaining about, is actually a good thing. Even though specs recognize the use, they also discourage the use:

Authors should avoid vendor-specific extensions

It has to report them as errors/warning because like noonnope said they are proprietary and it is only validating against a set recommendation not an “unknown”.

This exact topic has been discussed only a few days ago and how you could separate the CSS though usually it isn’t worth the effort, etc.

Personally, I just ignore such errors, as we all know they are non-standard and we know why. So why worry if they are the only errors?

I think the main issue is that these days a lot of people are using vendor extensions without realising what they were originally intended for and assuming that they are valid css.

A few years ago hardly anyone was using them but as support for IE has dwindled then we are seeing more extensions being used because they offer extra features to browsers like Firefox/safari/opera etc which now have a larger market share than before.

The problem with this is that many people copy this code without understanding the implications and reasoning behind vendor extensions and just think they are normal css rules.

If you use a vendor extension then that’s up to you and in most cases may do no harm if you have coded with graceful degradation in mind. However, you should also understand at the same time that the extensions are a) not valid b) subject to change and c) supported differently by various browsers. You use them at your own risk (having made your own risk assessment).

Well, the problem is that I’d like to be able to stick the validator link on the page, which I obviously can’t do if it’s going to say it’s invalid >.>

I pride myself in sticking to xhtml strict and css documentation, but I can’t very well use that if the validator is going to say my code is not valid. I remember there being some really cool css stuff you could do (well, can do), but it wasn’t valid for xhtml or something, so I couldn’t use it. I guess I just think that it’s completely idiotic for mozilla of all vendors to not support perfectly valid code…

Two things:

  • if you pride your self “sticking to xhtml strict and css documentation”, here’s an idea: stick to them :slight_smile: Maybe the validator has the right idea, who knows?! :wink:

  • why you’re pinning this on FF alone? Better yet, why you’re pinning this on FF? CSS3 is DRAFT. Meaning you need to keep it out of reach of children :slight_smile:

I’m lost on what other UAs support this so called “perfectly valid code” while FF doesn’t? 'Cos I’m a hardcore FF user, that’s why I’m asking :slight_smile:

And because FF does better than IE and Ch combined. So far :slight_smile: With the current valid CSS specs, that is! You seem to have a weird understanding of what is valid and what not and which specs to follow.

Since only newbies to validation do that you will probably achieve recognition closer to what you are after by NOT placing that link on your page.

You don’t stick a sign on your car that says you know how to drive do you?

Your right in hat felgall. ButI had clients who insisted that the page needed to validate and wanted the sticker on the page as well. What do you say? No I won’t do that

I would have to disagree with you there.

I thought so, too, until CH supported anti-aliasing, and until I found a bug with box-shadows mucking with layout in FF but not in Ch even though the latest CSS3 draft spec clearly stated box-shadows should not change layout.

Also, issues with overflow-x and overflow-y support.

I have to disagree with you more.

You “throw in my face” :slight_smile: trendy-dandy draft box-shadows. But, when it comes to serious CSS stuff, FF is better. See this thread, about some serious stuff.

I was an avid CH user. But at some point I realized their “speed” is a lie: it’s hogging my PC.

Yes, CH it starts faster. But later, their tabs are killing my PC. I have a pretty add-on on FF to unload unused tabs.

I don’t have the control of where and what to install when it comes to CH. They chose a native support for Flash, which is already causing problems. Will see about PDF native support. They are releasing versions too fast w/o showing any real improvements.

With FF I CAN CHOOSE. Right, a pretty essential thing. To me.

In short
Taking account of the CSS 2.1 current valid specs, FF is better. Maybe CH is rushing with CSS3 just for the sake of impressing. I’m not. Impressed, that is :slight_smile:

For the beginner, CH sounds better: it’s simpler and takes over in many ways. But, for a normal user, FF is the right stuff. You control every aspect. Which, sometimes, it’s pretty much impossible with CH.

We can play hearsay and anecdote all we want, but the fact is you had to download an ADD-ON to stop firefox from resource sucking.

I don’t know about your environment, but Ch on mine is still lightweight with 50+ tabs open.

If I tried to do the same with FF, I’d be running into the Multiple100 K system memory range devoted entirely to firefox.

a) I agree there are some basics that need to be updated. But you have to concede that about every browser. It’s not limited to FF being perfect on all basics.

b) I’d prefer to have the new stuff be implemented correctly from the get go.

c) What’s wrong with my trendy-dandy draft box shadows? Some of us like being AHEAD of the curve, instead of behind it, clinging to the lowest common denominator. I’d prefer to be a trend setter than a trend follower, thankuverymuch.

d) “Serious stuff” vs. trendy-dandy? Really? Talk about logical fallacies. Biasing the reader and an appeal to ridicule?

It’s possible that my lightweight playful tone misguided you?

It’s no hearsay. It’s solid testing based on intensive use.

CSS3 is draft. Making points that a UA is better than another based on that is plain stupid. And yes, CSS3 is trendy-dandy! I don’t see it addressing essential design problems.

And yes, Ch is lacking flexibility and its based is based on PC hogging. It’s possible you need more time to asses that. See what happens when you keep your 50+ tabs opened enough time in Ch. See the size of Ch folder. And the add-on in question will be part of FF 4.

And, finally, yes, Ch is behind at implementing serious CSS 2.1. Far behind. And that is what makes your " trendy-dandy draft box shadows" wrong and not “AHEAD of the curve”. It’s on the wrong track.

a) Your tone is more dismissive and belittling than lightweight and playful.

b) Your solid testing based on intensive use is still your own solid testing based on your own intensive use. As I’ve told you, we can play anecdote all we want. Ch runs better than FF on my system. And guess what? I’m claiming that based on “solid testing based on intensive use.” Oh man, we’re in a tizzy now aren’t we?

c) The b.s. dismissal of CSS3 saying “It’s just draft” to me is equivalent of saying “oh it’s just a theory!” Yes, because it’s draft, things can change. But I highly doubt that currently established standards, and currently established CSS3 properties will be scrapped. At this point, it’s more fine tuning, less major integration. To say you aren’t going to provide a progressive UX based on CSS3 is just DUMB. If you can do things using CSS3 and not using 30k worth of images and an extra few HTTP requests, why not?

d) To call it “trendy-dandy” is simply wrong. It’s not as if CSS3 is a fad. It’s not going to fall out of favor in a few years like “Best viewed in” banners or -1px letter-spacing on Helvetica. It is, quite literally, the future. It is the next in line of specifications, and will be the standard in a few years.

e) I don’t need more time to assess anything. My “solid testing based on intensive use” tells me that Ch works better than FF. I’ve made my decision, and it has been largely to my benefit. If you want to play this belittling childish game, maybe YOU need some more time to assess that. eyeroll

You keep throwing “anecdote”. Please quote me resorting to anectode :slight_smile:

You seem to be offended that I call CSS3 trendy-dandy. It is, so far. That’s what I see and what others seem to expect. By no means I was making references to you. Sorry if you understood that :slight_smile: I’m sure you’re not a CSS3 synonym.

For CSS3 to be the future it needs more. Being the next iteration specification doesn’t really mean better. Also is draft. I can make those distinctions. Can you?

I’ve been giving you facts, test cases and personal views. You are free to consider them as you like. What else can I do? I can only suggest more testing :slight_smile: The matter is closed to me.

Every time you say “well I did this this and this” without referencing anyone else’s experience, that’s an anecdote. So you claiming Ch was hogging YOUR computer’s resources, that’s an anecdote unless you can find corroborating evidence.

I don’t think you are making references to me. I just think you are misguided.
By virtue of the fact that it’s the next specification, it automatically means it’s the future. By definition.

And CSS3 has added tons of extra functionality. The only thing is you are dashing these even before considering them, by calling them nothing but fluffy extras.

Just because it’s the next iteration does not make it inherently better. Vista is not better than XP just because it’s the next iteration. But CSS3 is significantly better than CSS2.1. It has the ability to replace tons of functionality currently created only using javascript, images, and non-semantic HTML with pure design CSS.

Support for the flex box model, for proper display: table, for multi-column layouts, for @media queries, for @font-face embedding, for transitions, animations, 2d transforms, 3d transforms, gradients, alpha values, HSL values, multiple background images, background origins, background clipping, border-image, text shadows, word wrapping, text-overflow, overflow-x, overflow-y

Oh yeah, and those fancy-dancy-trendy-dandy things like border-radius and box-shadow. Can’t believe I almost forgot those!

Man, that’s a lot of added AWESOME functionality. Too bad you don’t consider it “the future.” Good luck using CSS2.1 for the rest of your life.