Closed Bug 730780 Opened 13 years ago Closed 13 years ago

-moz-border-radius not good enough no more, need border-radius, too

Categories

(Webtools Graveyard :: Elmo, defect, P1)

defect

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: Pike, Assigned: peterbe)

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 1 obsolete file)

Nightlies stopped supporting moz-border-radius, it seems, we should add border-radius everywhere. I think we should fix this on master, too. Not sure if a hotfix merges well, but might be worth a try.
Attached patch done (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Attachment #601005 - Flags: review?(l10n)
Comment on attachment 601005 [details] [diff] [review] done Review of attachment 601005 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Can you attach a diff -w for snippet.css? That's hard to review as it is right now. ::: apps/l10nstats/templates/l10nstats/grid.html @@ +1,2 @@ > +<!-- IS THIS TEMPLATE OBSOLETE?? --> > + Remove this comment, and just file a bug on it? Yes, it should be obsolete. ::: static/css/style.css @@ -393,5 @@ > } > -/* moved gradient from roe to cell level */ > -#policy_versions td { > - background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(center top , white, #EEEEEE); > -} This was just duplicated?
Attachment #601005 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #603034 - Flags: review?(l10n)
Attachment #601005 - Flags: review?(l10n)
(In reply to Axel Hecht [:Pike] from comment #2) > Comment on attachment 601005 [details] [diff] [review] > done > > Review of attachment 601005 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Can you attach a diff -w for snippet.css? That's hard to review as it is > right now. > Done. Note: A lot of the whitespace changes were deliberate. Some of it is trailing whitespace cleanup but I also corrected some general identation. > ::: apps/l10nstats/templates/l10nstats/grid.html > @@ +1,2 @@ > > +<!-- IS THIS TEMPLATE OBSOLETE?? --> > > + > > Remove this comment, and just file a bug on it? Yes, it should be obsolete. > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733118 > ::: static/css/style.css > @@ -393,5 @@ > > } > > -/* moved gradient from roe to cell level */ > > -#policy_versions td { > > - background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(center top , white, #EEEEEE); > > -} > > This was just duplicated? Yeah. A little remnant from the days of trying to get Schalk productive with our code.
Attachment #603034 - Flags: review?(l10n) → review+
> background-image: linear-gradient(center top , white, #EEEEEE); linear-gradient syntax was been changed again. It should be: background-image: linear-gradient(to bottom, white, #EEEEEE); Or simply: background-image: linear-gradient(white, #EEEEEE); It's more prefereable not to write the unprefixed version at all. In general, you should not introduce potential incompatibilities like this. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Web_development/Writing_forward-compatible_websites#Don%27t_use_unprefixed_versions_of_CSS_properties_or_APIs_until_at_least_one_browser_supports_them > Don't use unprefixed versions of CSS properties or APIs until at least > one browser supports them > Until there's decently widespread support of the unprefixed version of > something, its behavior can still change in unexpected ways. Most > especially, don't use the unprefixed version if no browser actually > supports it. You can't assume that the syntax of the final version will > be the same as the syntax of any of the prefixed versions. At present no browsers support unprefixed gradients.
Sounds like I should turn my r+ into an r+ with :emk's nits :-)
:emk I'm sorry but I'm struggling to understand what your point is. So we currently have this: http://hastebin.com/docemifilo.css Are you suggesting we drop the non-vendor-prefixed selector?
(In reply to Peter Bengtsson [:peterbe] from comment #7) > :emk > I'm sorry but I'm struggling to understand what your point is. > So we currently have this: http://hastebin.com/docemifilo.css > Are you suggesting we drop the non-vendor-prefixed selector? I recommend dropping the unprefixed declaration, but if you leave it, update to the latest spec, at least.
Just realizing that it'd be great to get this tweaked and landed, too.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee: nobody → peterbe
Target Milestone: --- → 2.1
Product: Webtools → Webtools Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: