Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 989967
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 16, 20262026-05-16T05:52:29+00:00 2026-05-16T05:52:29+00:00

In Safari & Webkit, using only border-radius seems to work without adding the prefix

  • 0

In Safari & Webkit, using only border-radius seems to work without adding the prefix -webkit- to it. Is it okay to leave -webkit- prefix for border-radius?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-16T05:52:30+00:00Added an answer on May 16, 2026 at 5:52 am

    You miss the point of validation. You validate to avoid errors! These include: unsafe browser extensions, hacks, ie-hacks, and actual errors. By no means should you validate to make your code less cross-browser functional.

    You should be aware there are such things as expected errors, and even valid code works with those. Browser extensions like -moz-, -webkit-, and -o- are expected errors. All browsers are designed to drop unknown rules. This is how CSS allows for backwards compatibility. A CSS2 supporting browser will drop the CSS3 border-radius rule. Being valid or invalid doesn’t have anything to do with it, and by no means will any browser just break because of it (fortunately for us the idea of turning CSS into XML was squashed and never saw the light of day). Opera will drop -moz- rules and Firefox will drop -o- rules, this is not a error. This is expected behavior:

    An initial dash or underscore is guaranteed never to be used in a property or keyword by any current or future level of CSS. Thus typical CSS implementations may not recognize such properties and may ignore them according to the rules for handling parsing errors. However, because the initial dash or underscore is part of the grammar, CSS 2.1 implementers should always be able to use a CSS-conforming parser, whether or not they support any vendor-specific extensions.

    The w3c even defines how to write these “Vendor-specific extensions”. The following are the current extensions well known ones:

    • -ms-, mso- Microsoft
    • -moz- Mozilla
    • -o-, -xv- Opera Software
    • -webkit- Apple
    • -khtml- KDE

    There are also some you might have never even heard of:

    • -atsc- Advanced Television Standards Committee
    • -wap- The WAP Forum

    Browsers implement draft-stage or partial implementations (ie. browser supports X, Y but not Z) of CSS rules, as extensions. This way they prevent any change in the spec from breaking previous versions of the browser. There have been cases where browsers have gone gun happy and implemented them as non-extensions, and the usual result has always been said browser has shot themselves in the foot, things like: “browser XXX version YYY has bad implementation of […]”. Most notably IE stands at the no.1 spot on this, but other browsers too have successfully managed to shoot themselves in the foot. When a draft becomes standard and the browser fully (or sufficiently) implements the spec, a rule is created with out the -xxx- prefix.

    In recent years, all major browsers have adopted this as a de facto standard.


    How and when to use -xxx- browser extensions? As usual the best practice is to design using only standards compliant code in the most advanced browser you have at your disposal then add all the safe extensions. Out of the extensions use the ones based on w3c standards or current working drafts. Don’t use dropped standards/drafts or browser wannabe-standards (ie. some of the old Firefox ones). Also avoid any sort of tinkering rules unless it has a stable fallback.

    In the case of the border-radius rule you have a stable fallback.

    How to keep both form and function? In my opinion most people are not bothered by the “ohmygosh it’s not valid” but rather the fact they are forced to write multiple rules for the same line. A simple solution to this is to use a template system. There are quite a few out there for CSS, as the problem of keeping your code DRY is a persistent one.

    The are many many many different implementations out there. The basic idea though is to solve the problem using a mixin (ie. function):

    =border-radius(!radius)
      -moz-border-radius= !radius;
      -webkit-border-radius= !radius;
      -khtml-border-radius= !radius;
      border-radius= !radius;
    

    We can now write this everywhere:

    .stuff
      +border-radius(15px);
    

    This code is much more flexible then just writing border-radius: 15px and hoping for the best. It’s also maintainable (what no element should have more then 10px border radius? no problem).

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

When using ECMAScripts typeof on plugin elements (i.e. embed or object ), Safari &
CSS3 -webkit-transition is choking on multiple box-shadow values and text-shadow values. (Chrome & Safari)
I have an issue with website markup on WebKit browsers (Chrome & Safari), i.e.
The Safari & Chrome developer tools (webkit inspector) seem to have become quite advanced.
I have a simple animation (only for Safari in this example): h1 { -webkit-animation:
Safari and Chrome seem to be adding extra padding/margins in regards to the text
I need to match Safari browsers, but not Chrome browsers using one Regex. I
When using Safari on Windows 7 to load any page containing any Java applet,
(This question is a follow up from Safari Scrollbars & SVG - the workaround
my website including jpg´s is displayed correctly on IE,FF & Chrome. Safari on PC

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.