Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #13369 > unrolled thread

Does the CSS "transform" property work yet?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Does the CSS "transform" property work yet? John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-04-13 09:58 -0700
    Re: Does the CSS "transform" property work yet? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-13 22:03 +0200
      Re: Does the CSS "transform" property work yet? David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 05:45 -0700
        Re: Does the CSS "transform" property work yet? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-20 08:25 -0700

#13369 — Does the CSS "transform" property work yet?

   Does the CSS "transform" property work portably in current browsers?
Or  are we still stuck with crap like this?

-ms-transform:rotate(7deg);
-moz-transform:rotate(7deg);
-webkit-transform:rotate(7deg);
-o-transform:rotate(7deg);

    Also, does "transform" apply before or after image tiling repeat?
					
					John Nagle

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13372

John Nagle wrote:

>    Does the CSS "transform" property work portably in current browsers?
> Or  are we still stuck with crap like this?
> 
> -ms-transform:rotate(7deg);
> -moz-transform:rotate(7deg);
> -webkit-transform:rotate(7deg);
> -o-transform:rotate(7deg);
> 
>     Also, does "transform" apply before or after image tiling repeat?

You were looking for comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets instead.

Regarding that which is on-topic here, there are popular attempts to use 
client-side scripting to work around the vendor prefix problem, like Lea 
Verou's -prefix-free [1].  As for the latter, I find both the underlying 
approach and the resulting code quality questionable.  YMMV.


PointedEars
___________
[1] <http://leaverou.github.com/prefixfree/>
-- 
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
)  // Plone, register_function.js:16

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13469

On Apr 13, 4:03 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
> John Nagle wrote:
> >    Does the CSS "transform" property work portably in current browsers?
> > Or  are we still stuck with crap like this?
>
> > -ms-transform:rotate(7deg);
> > -moz-transform:rotate(7deg);
> > -webkit-transform:rotate(7deg);
> > -o-transform:rotate(7deg);
>
> >     Also, does "transform" apply before or after image tiling repeat?
>
> You were looking for comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheetsinstead.
>
> Regarding that which is on-topic here, there are popular attempts to use
> client-side scripting to work around the vendor prefix problem, like Lea
> Verou's -prefix-free [1].  As for the latter, I find both the underlying
> approach and the resulting code quality questionable.  YMMV.
>

I find the idea of using a script to prop up style sheets to be
questionable as well (at least in most contexts).

Every time I click a link to one of these ill-advised JS cure-alls, I
see dubious claims (only 2K GZipped!) in huge colorful text, cartoon-
like images, buzzwords, breathless accolades from nobodies, etc.  It's
like they know their target market is twelve-year-olds (or adults with
similar mentalities). And every time I bother to look at the code,
it's one line and done (i.e. I can throw a darts at the printout and
hit a howler every time). Often I don't need to even look at the code;
the explanations of how it is supposed to work and why it is supposed
to be useful are typically enough to know it is just another waste of
time (which is definitely the case here). These marketers want to try
to fiddle around my style sheets using JS? Oh sure, if you can't trust
salesmen to write JS code, who can you trust?

And I'm really sick of the industry focus on file sizes (particularly
*compressed* file sizes). Even the smallest scripts can exclude
visitors, significantly slow down loading times, break pages, etc. A
common "argument" in defense of jQuery is that it is the size of "a
small JPEG" (whatever the hell that means). I'm sure by now that most
programmers have realized the havoc that that script can wreak, so who
is buying this crap about its "small" footprint?

Don't buy scripts from salesmen. I've dealt with enough of these types
to know they are interested in one thing: attention. All they talk
about is gaining "traction", which means attracting as many suckers as
possible to pay attention to them. It's like institutional advertising
perpetrated by individuals.

Once the initial traction is made, pundits chime in so you will pay
attention to them too. Then come the dubious books, speaking
engagements, etc. Seems like a lot of work for virtually nothing to
me, but I suppose the attention is enough for some. Of course, some of
these things do eventually lead to commercial ventures (see Sencha),
albeit laughable ones (see Sencha again). And before anyone asks
what's so laughable about getting x million dollars in financing from
VC's, think about it for a moment. Who is the joke on at that
point? :)

Or maybe they are all great, well-considered programming efforts by
really nice, forward-thinking pioneers who just want to make the Web a
better place and I'm just jealous of all of their wonderful "success"
stories. Then again, maybe they are all alien visitors and I'm the
Queen of Sheba. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13470

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:45:57 -0700 (PDT), David Mark
<dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>... Oh sure, if you can't trust
>salesmen to write JS code, who can you trust?

     Just a tad bitter?

[snip]

>Or maybe they are all great, well-considered programming efforts by
>really nice, forward-thinking pioneers who just want to make the Web a
>better place and I'm just jealous of all of their wonderful "success"
>stories. Then again, maybe they are all alien visitors and I'm the
>Queen of Sheba. :)

     While I was quite impressed with your rant, Your Royal Majesty, I
feel you should have included a paragraph on "best practices".

     That is where you promote a lame idea by calling it "best
practices".  How could anyone rationally argue against doing something
the "best" way?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web