[ergo14]

What an idiotic move - So now they want to make webkit the next IE of internet?

Standards are standards - period. I see ton of wrong with this approach, or... mabye we should just ignore the w3C CSS Working group.

Vendor prefixes are fine - as long they are used as temporary solution, and no one expects them to be the "default" way of doing things.

[cpeterso]

Opera is not making WebKit the new IE; web developers who only use -webkit CSS prefixes have done that.

[ergo14]

By this move they are essentially legitimizing it. The only way to oppose stupidity is to not agree to it.

[politician]

Exactly, couldn't Opera instead release an advisory tool which examines stylesheets and points out how to convert -webkit- prefixes to a) standards or b) -o- prefixes?

[batista]

>Exactly, couldn't Opera instead release an advisory tool which examines stylesheets and points out how to convert -webkit- prefixes to a) standards or b) -o- prefixes?

So all of 0.1% of web designers who use Opera can change them?

[robertnn]

Lots of people implicitly expects them to be working in the long run. Lots of people will read a tutorial on how to get the cool animation X and the tutorial will only include the -webkit-property, and the reader won't even bother that he is excluding a big part of the users, because he uses only a webkit browser, so he won't notice.

There is something inherently wrong with vendor prefixes as they are used currently. But in the same time they are good if some browser wants to implement a new alpha feature or something.. but they should really not be supported for so much time as they are now.

[eli]

Historically, the standards that have been most successful have been the ones that describe what people are already doing

[ergo14]

Eli, but notice what the article says - some developers use vendor prefixes to do something that already IS in standards. There is a very good reason W3C is out there. I don't know how old are some of the people commenting here, but we were in this situation in past.