FAO BEN

Forum|Forum|9 years ago
March 14, 2017
1 reply
771 views

That sounds fine, reference to other discussion, which was locked before l could reply. I was not thinking about writing vanilla css in a sass/less file but no reason why not . Keeps it all in one program.

This topic has been closed for replies.

pziecina

Legend

osgood_ wrote
That sounds fine, reference to other discussion, which was locked before l could reply. I was not thinking about writing vanilla css in a sass/less file but no reason why not . Keeps it all in one program.

Because you have to set it up in your site definition, and you end up with the sass file and the css file. If you have any css you wish to create in another sub-folder, or anywhere else, you then have to do it all over again, (change in site def, etc).

Stupid and unnecessary if you ask me, and a reason why Dw is going backwards in modern site development.

BenPleysier

Community Expert

It may seem stupid and unnecessary to some, while it may be beneficial to others. Personally I prefer to write

.a {
display: flex;
background: linear-gradient(red, green);
}

rather than

.a {
display: -webkit-box;
display: -ms-flexbox;
display: flex;
background: -webkit-linear-gradient(red, green);
background: linear-gradient(red, green);
}

and if that means keeping two sets of files (one with and the other without) then I am willing to put up with that.

Having said that, I think we should be pushing to get rid of the ridiculous prefixes, we should be complaining to the browser developers to adhere to the rules that they themselves have set through W3C.

Wappler is the DMXzone-made Dreamweaver replacement and includes the best of their powerful extensions, as well as much more!

pziecina

Legend

And with a seperate autoprefixer, i write exactly the same as you, click on apply, (or allow it automatically on save) and get exactly the same result applied. No setting up, no unnecessary extra files, and it can be done to every css file in any file location, without changing anything.

vendor prefixing is the w3c recomended method. The browsers manufacturers are trying to minimize it, but when they think a feature is ready, but the specs have not been updated, then by the w3c recommendation they must use vendor prefixing.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded