Bug 9210 – Fade JS effect not implemented in Safari, works in Firefox

• Status: RESOLVED
• Resolution: WONTFIX
• Component: CSS

[Jared Reynolds]

On front page the news fades in and out fetching the information from a .txt document. Works in Firefox.

[Alexey Proskuryakov]

Created attachment 8697 [details]
test case

The news ticker uses either filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.alpha or -moz-opacity (Mozilla extension, roughly equivalent to standard CSS3 opacity).

[Alexey Proskuryakov]

Regardless of whether Safari gains support for -moz-opacity, it may make sense to use a standard CSS3 selector in the JS code. 

In Mozilla, it is supported starting with version 1.7: <http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/CSS:-moz-opacity>, and the meaning of -moz-opacity has subtly changed then. Shipping versions of Safari don't support CSS3 opacity yet, but current development builds already do: <http://nightly.webkit.org>.

[Dave Hyatt]

That's not true.  Shipping versions of Safari *do* support opacity.

[Alexey Proskuryakov]

(In reply to comment #3)
> That's not true.  Shipping versions of Safari *do* support opacity.

Sorry, my bad.

[Joost de Valk (AlthA)]

We support it however as opacity, and not as -moz-opacity, since we're not moz :)

[Alexey Proskuryakov]

The site looks dead now (even DNS resolution fails).

Sounds like adding support for -moz-opacity was not such a great idea - what about filter?

[Jordan Breeding]

Related to <a href="http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12944">bug 12944</a>.

Not to be rude but my user agent string for WebKit does contain strings like "Mozilla/5.0" and "like Gecko".  Maybe it wouldn't be the end of the world if WebKit were to support things like -moz-opacity instead of only -opacity.

[Dave Hyatt]

We can't.  We temporarily supported -moz-opacity and a prominent Web site (I think Adobe) broke because of misapplying it to WebKit. 

[Jordan Breeding]

Well that is depressing.  I hate having to have a copy of Camino around strictly for a small number of websites that still don't work on Safari/Webkit, and the worst part is when the support teams for those websites don't even respond to emails.

[Dave Hyatt]

It's extremely strange that they didn't use the standard property name, since that is supported in Firefox, Opera and Safari.

[David Kilzer (:ddkilzer)]

(In reply to comment #9)
> Well that is depressing.  I hate having to have a copy of Camino around
> strictly for a small number of websites that still don't work on Safari/Webkit,
> and the worst part is when the support teams for those websites don't even
> respond to emails.

Jared, please file an evangelism bug for each web site that doesn't work with Safari so that they may be tracked.  Thanks!

[Jordan Breeding]

Should I change bug 12944 from CSS to Evangelism?

[David Kilzer (:ddkilzer)]

(In reply to comment #12)
> Should I change bug 12944 from CSS to Evangelism?

Yes, please do.  Per Comment #8, this bug should be closed as RESOLVED/WONTFIX.

[Mark Malone]

This bug is really that Safari doesn't support -moz-opacity.  Nothing to evangelize here.

[Robert Blaut]

(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > Should I change bug 12944 from CSS to Evangelism?
> 
> Yes, please do.  Per Comment #8, this bug should be closed as RESOLVED/WONTFIX.

So I close the bug. In addition, the site fixes opacity support. Actually opacity on that site works fine in Webkit.