Page 1 of 1

Browser specific properties

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:39 am
by Albert Wiersch
I have been working on CSS3 support in CSE HTML Validator. For example, supporting the new "border-image" properties. It seems that browsers from different sources have their proprietary versions of these properties because CSS3 is not finalized yet. This means that instead of just something like this:

Code: Select all

border-image: url('border.png') 27 27 27 27 round round;
You may need this "mess" with all the proprietary properties that start with a dash:

Code: Select all

-o-border-image: url('border.png') 27 27 27 27 round round;
-icab-border-image: url('border.png') 27 27 27 27 round round;
-khtml-border-image: url('border.png') 27 27 27 27 round round;
-moz-border-image: url('border.png') 27 27 27 27 round round;
-webkit-border-image: url('border.png') 27 27 27 27 round round;
border-image: url('border.png') 27 27 27 27 round round;
So far, I haven't added much or any support for checking these proprietary properties. FOr the most part, it will ignore properties beginning with a dash character and generate a message telling this to the user.

I'd like opinions on how to handle this? Some options:

1. Continue to ignore properties starting with a dash but generate a message saying so (that these properties are being ignored).

2. If a property like "border-image" is used, then display a message about using the proprietary properties (if not already used) - like -moz-border-image and -o-border-image and ALSO check these properties for syntax using the same checking that is done for "border-image".

3. Other option?

Comments? Thanks!

Re: Browser specific properties

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:27 am
by CA Traveler
Proprietary properties will exist for a number of years and probably even be carried into new versions for compatibility so they need to be accommodated. If you ignore properties that begin with a dash then that would apply to any future new properties. I wonder about # 2. What if someone is using say FF in an non IE shop?

My first thought was to would either ignore the proprietary lines or syntax check them. I thought that I read that there may be syntax differences in some of the details but maybe not. What if additional non compatible options are added later?

Just some thoughts.