Template talk:ViewFF
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
See CSS3Please.com for common cool css trix and their fellow browser equivalents --Bean 17:17, 10 June 2011 (BST)
- Template:Firefox has a better image of the firefox logo, imho --hagnat 17:47, 10 June 2011 (BST)
- And try to use some of the effect available in firefox in your template. Look how mine looks so awesome when u use chrome :D --hagnat 18:14, 10 June 2011 (BST)
- Personally, I don't see the point in either template. Things that look better in Chrome look better in Safari too, since they share the same rendering engine, so it's silly to advertise one without the other. And for 99% of code, as long as the person coded it as they should have, with cross-platform compatibility in mind, the stuff will work just fine in Firefox and Opera too. IE is the one big exception, but everyone already knows that anyway, so we don't need to keep advertising that IE sucks.
- And before anyone tells me, yes, I know there are some thing you can do in WebKit that you can't do in Firefox (I even use one on my userpage, since Firefox doesn't support programmatically generated gradients as inputs for alpha image masks), and vice versa. But for rounded corners, shadows, and most of the other neat tricks we use around here, they all do the job equally well, more or less. —Aichon— 20:35, 10 June 2011 (BST)
- Let the record show that Internet Explorer 9 is a huge improvement and very compliant to CSS3 and HTML5 standards. Indeed, Webkit is avant-garde when it comes to integrating new CSS3 functionality, but other browsers follow. It's not true that there's no gradient property available for Firefox (3.6), it's
background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(top, #444444, #999999);. Bean 00:50, 12 June 2011 (BST)- IE9 is indeed a big step, but it still leaves a lot to be desired. And I didn't say that there is no gradient support in Firefox. What I said is that it doesn't support using gradients instead of images in alpha masks. For a quick example, go to the navbar for my userspace. In WebKit browsers, you'll notice that there's a slight fade to transparency near the bottom of the "Aichon". I was able to do that by applying an alpha mask to the letters, then using a gradient created with CSS as the input image on which the alpha mask was based. While Firefox supports gradients and alpha masks using images, it doesn't (as of FF 4.0) support using gradients as images in alpha masks, hence my comment. If you know otherwise though, let me know, since I'd be eager to get that navbar looking equally good in Firefox. —Aichon— 02:05, 12 June 2011 (BST)
- Dang. I just made the template because one I don't know how to make everything compatible and two there are many times I don't really care to do so. I checked my user page in other browsers to make sure nothing is broken but that's about the extent of it. If I'm feeling frisky I might make it decently compatible after I get back from vacation.. 02:48, 12 June 2011 (BST)
- IE9 is indeed a big step, but it still leaves a lot to be desired. And I didn't say that there is no gradient support in Firefox. What I said is that it doesn't support using gradients instead of images in alpha masks. For a quick example, go to the navbar for my userspace. In WebKit browsers, you'll notice that there's a slight fade to transparency near the bottom of the "Aichon". I was able to do that by applying an alpha mask to the letters, then using a gradient created with CSS as the input image on which the alpha mask was based. While Firefox supports gradients and alpha masks using images, it doesn't (as of FF 4.0) support using gradients as images in alpha masks, hence my comment. If you know otherwise though, let me know, since I'd be eager to get that navbar looking equally good in Firefox. —Aichon— 02:05, 12 June 2011 (BST)
- Let the record show that Internet Explorer 9 is a huge improvement and very compliant to CSS3 and HTML5 standards. Indeed, Webkit is avant-garde when it comes to integrating new CSS3 functionality, but other browsers follow. It's not true that there's no gradient property available for Firefox (3.6), it's
Although. You have made me see some bonuses to chrome. Can it do everything FF can and then more? 02:55, 12 June 2011 (BST)
- It sounds like you're asking if it's better in every regard, and the answer is "nope". They both have advantages and disadvantages. In terms of CSS, they're roughly on par with each other as far as most things are concerned. Last I checked, WebKit was still ahead in terms of CSS animations, but those aren't being used too much on the web since they're kinda bleeding edge, and we can't even use them on the wiki anyway since we can only do inline CSS (CSS animations depend on changing CSS classes on the fly, which we can't do here). I'm sure there are other areas of CSS that WebKit is ahead, as well as areas that Firefox is ahead, but I haven't been keeping track enough to know them. Karek would know better than I would, probably, and it sounds like Bean may know some stuff as well. As for the other side, Firefox has loads more extensions than Chrome, so that's a major benefit to it that a lot of people love, and is probably its biggest selling point. Honestly, either one is a great browser, depending on your needs. I'm not out to sell people on Chrome over Firefox or the other way around, and would definitely encourage coding in a cross-browser compatible way when possible. For some help with that, you may want to check out {{border-radius}} and {{xbrowsercss}}. —Aichon— 05:48, 12 June 2011 (BST)
