Comments for a pint of javascript (and general web stuff)

Comment on Standards Compliancy is a lie (or, how all browsers have a broken border-radius) by gonchuki

gonchuki — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:22:34 +0000

I understand that CSS3 is not a finished standard, but this post from early 2007 shows how we had border-radius support in Gecko and Webkit for well over 3 years. It's clearly not a feature that was added sometime last Thursday.

Comment on Standards Compliancy is a lie (or, how all browsers have a broken border-radius) by Keith Cirkel

Keith Cirkel — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:08:02 +0000

It's fine that all browsers have lost the vendor prefix, because the vendor prefix is there for syntax/lexical changes, so that any change to the standard doesn't destabilise existing website based on the vendor-prefix syntax standard (case in point, look at -moz-gradient and -webkit-gradient).

The bug here is a rendering issue. It's still bad, but its just rendering issues, fixable without impact. Bear in mind this is CSS3 W3C Candidate Recommendation, not a W3C Standard – meaning it's all very new still.

Comment on Standards Compliancy is a lie (or, how all browsers have a broken border-radius) by gonchuki

gonchuki — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:41:22 +0000

Actually both Opera and the IE9 preview work without any vendor prefix for border-radius. None of them get it right.

Comment on Standards Compliancy is a lie (or, how all browsers have a broken border-radius) by Zach Leatherman

Zach Leatherman — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:26:55 +0000

This doesn't seem all that painful. Isn't this why we have vendor prefixes?

Which browsers have removed the vendor prefix and use just border-radius?

Comment on CSS Sprites2 – It's MooTools Time by Peter

Peter — Sat, 22 May 2010 17:50:30 +0000

First: excellent solution, pretty, clean motion! Thank YOU for sharing!

Second: What if one wanted to make this into an include file for a PHP file?

I've seen some similar CURRENT PAGE scripts use the body id or a PHP function inserted at the top of the page to identify the page as the CURRENT PAGE, but the List Apart solution and yours only calls the class of the current page within the LI tag for each link so it performs only if the code is included inline.

So, for a non-techie like myself, trying to figure out how to modify the JS and CSS for use in a PHP include file — i.e., exactly where and what to change to make it recognize when to use the CSS for the CURRENT PAGE as an include file is… a bit daunting.

Is this an easy fix, or does it require major revamping?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

You rock!

Comment on HTML5 vs Flash take 2: what Steve Jobs doesn't want you to know by mve

mve — Wed, 05 May 2010 10:30:06 +0000

I agree, I think Adobe has put in some hard work over the years to really make Flash a usable format. I saw some really cool i-pad type of device running Air as a digital magazine. I think it was Wired if I'm not mistaken. Thanks for the post.

Comment on HTML5 vs Flash take 2: what Steve Jobs doesn't want you to know by gonchuki

gonchuki — Tue, 04 May 2010 22:20:15 +0000

@Robin Annon
totally, and we must be rational and attribute the issue to all the parties: Macromedia, Adobe and most importantly: Apple, for giving very poor API support.

Comment on HTML5 vs Flash take 2: what Steve Jobs doesn't want you to know by KevinD

KevinD — Tue, 04 May 2010 21:44:10 +0000

Re: TOUCH

Everyone ignores the fact that HTML / CSS / JS was _also_ designed for use with a mouse, and HAS THE SAME ROLLOVER AND MOUSE MOVEMENT PROBLEMS as Flash.

Mobile Safari doesn't know what to do with mouseover or mouseup events, etc. It uses those actions for scrolling instead. It also sucks up doubleclicks to use for zoom. It also has to resort to two-fingers for scrolling divs and textareas.

Safari does have a workable hack for CSS hover: the first click enables it to show hidden menus, the second click actually clicks. Flash could be made to do similar workarounds. Although of course devices like Android with trackballs don't really need any… they _have_ a mouse.

Comment on HTML5 vs Flash take 2: what Steve Jobs doesn't want you to know by Robin Hood

Robin Hood — Tue, 04 May 2010 16:41:01 +0000

> Adobe has been working hard on Flash and the upcoming 10.1 rewrites history by fixing every problem that previous versions had on the Mac.

So, are you saying that Flash really does suck on Mac today, but the future will be really really bright?

Comment on HTML5 vs Flash take 2: what Steve Jobs doesn't want you to know by Nuwanda

Nuwanda — Sat, 01 May 2010 15:45:55 +0000

I thought the cross-compiler allowed ANY Flash app to be compiled for the iPhone. If it's only for "smartphone apps", and all supported smartphones share the same features, then I stand corrected, and I agree with you that there is no reason for the Flash cross-compiled apps to be inferior to apps developed with the Apple suite.

It's funny (and sad) that I can't use multitouch as an example of an iPhone-only feature because Apple doesn't allow third-party multitouch apps on the App Store XD