IE8 STILL Doesn’t Support CSS border-radius

I find it absolutely amazing that IE8 doesn’t support border-radius. No wonder more & more people think IE sucks. It’s just ugly.

9 Replies to “IE8 STILL Doesn’t Support CSS border-radius”

  1. Well, considering that they focused all their intention on getting CSS 2.1 compliance that’s not really surprising is it?

    I think it’s good that IE focused on nailing the basics. I saw a video interview with a Microsoft representative, he was very honest and said pretty much straight out that they where behind, both in bugs and features.

    btw. Have you read articles on progressive enchantment in CSS? Sites doesn’t need to look exactly the same in all browsers. In fact, it’s a good way to show how some browsers are better. Some of the sites I’m working on look completely fine all the way back to IE6, but have some details(text shadows) on more modern browsers. It still good on IE6, but it looks great on modern browsers.

    I also think people are underestimating the work Microsoft put into IE8 to make it have a IE6-compatible engine as well, so companies dependent on IE6 can use their old crufty IE6-app on their intranet, but browse the web in it’s standards glory.

  2. IE8 is a huge and much appreciated step forward, however, it’s still a pain in the ass to develop for. It still doesn’t work properly for much code, and as a result, the browser is still way behind in usability. Furthermore, leaving out now common support for things like text-shadow and border-radius show that Microsoft doesn’t really care about making the web look good and feel comfortable, and THAT is why their browser share is dropping like crazy. That’s why the IE8 rollout is stalling. And that’s why Firefox, Chrome, and Safari will continue to erode their market share.

  3. Last time I looked (5 seconds ago) Firexox (v3.0.10 << the latest one at the time of writing) didnt support border-radius either. It supports it’s own ugly proprietary property ‘-moz-border-radius’. That is not the same thing. Can you find ‘-moz-border-radius’ in CSS3? Hmmm…. Didn’t think so.

    So, to correct your statement… ‘I find it absolutely amazing that IE8, Firefox and most all other browsers don’t support the CSS3 property ‘border-radius’, only ugly, crappy proprietary CSS properties. You know, the same sort of thing as all those proprietary tags that Netscape and MS used to do that everyone moaned about.’ 😉

    I am still waiting for Firefox and friends to offer support for the *real* border-radius property as personally I find it rather unsavoury to have to litter my CSS with -moz-* or -khtml-* proprietary crap. I take it you are happy with non-compliant code then?

    Anyway, what’s your rush with CSS3 implementation?

  4. Fred: of course Firefox uses ‘-moz-border-radius’, that’s the proper way to implement draft standards.

    CSS3 isn’t finalized, but adding ‘-moz’ in front of the draft properties is the right way to do it (for Mozilla/Firefox), look it up. There is also -webkit and -o for Safari and Opera, respectively.

    This is much different than the old ‘browsers wars’ of the IE4/NS4 era.

    What Adam S. and I are really complaining about is the lack of a ‘-ms-border-radius’ in IE8.

  5. I am aware of the -vendor_identifier-property syntax. My post was a semantic argument typed with a devilish smile on my face. 🙂 (I was in *that* sort of mood).

    I think that the -o and/or -opera prefix has now been dropped for this. -o-border-radius and -opera-border-radius both failed in Opera 9.63 when I looked yesterday. IIRC in addition to -webkit there is also -khtml.

    It is a pity though as I get fed up with implementing the rounded corner wot-nots the long way round.

    My point about non-validating code stands though. I really am against non-validating CSS/HTML/XHTML et.al., in any form.

    Furthermore, I still think that a parallel of sorts exists between this and the old MS/Netscape non-standard stuff. After all, at the end of the day it all fails validation, irrespective of whether the mechanism is ‘permitted’ by the W3C or not.

    😉

Comments are closed.