postcss-plugins VS standards-positions

the author of the most popular PostCSS plugin himself recommended the postcss-preset-env over his own creation which is cssnex, and

The example in A) won't work as the plugin can't convert the functions with variables in it. https://github.com/csstools/postcss-plugins/tree/main/plugin...

You can use this today if you're using PostCSS in your build process (which is the case if you use autoprefixer)! https://preset-env.cssdb.org/

Switching from a ready-made tool like Sass or a recommendation package like cssnext (deprecated since 2019) or PostCSS Preset Env (archived in 2022), to the modular PostCSS Preset Env plugin set we can choose a helpful and convenient set of future CSS features beyond the current stable client CSS.

To implement :has support, the css-has-pseudo polyfill can be used. This polyfill includes both a PostCSS plugin and a JS function to be used in the HTML page.

Yes, it's behind a flag and only in future versions, but it is a huge step forward. Those versions will soon be available, and we can try it locally (unfortunately, not on production without a polyfill or a plugin).

w/ postcss-preset-env(v7.8.3): convert modern CSS into something most browsers can understand, determining the polyfills you need based on your targeted browsers or runtime environments. It takes the support data that comes from MDN and Can I Use and determine from a browserlist whether those transformations are needed. It also packs Autoprefixer within and shares the list with it, so prefixes are only applied when you're going to need them given your browser support list.

There's a @ custom-media proposal (and PostCSS plugin) that can make it a lot easier to use media queries across components. Define your MQs in your global CSS, use everywhere. If you're worried about repeating MQs in your CSS from a bloat perspective, there are PostCSS plugins for that as well.

The term you are looking for is "nesting". CSS currently does not support it. But there is a draft being worked on. No browser currently supports it, though. Most CSS Pre- or Postprocessors like Sass, Less, Stylus, PostCSS support nesting.

You can read through the conversations to understand more of the context

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100#is...

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/336

The main struggle is around giving informed consent that explains the risks. Understandably, browsers don't want to ship a "Set my printer on fire" button.

You can check why Mozilla and Apple have opted to not support this.

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154

https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/28

Neither Mozilla or Webkit are satisfied that the proposal is safe by default, and contains footguns for the user that can be pretty destructive.

FWIW Mozilla updated their position on Web Serial API to "neutral" and clarified that they might be okay with enabling the API with an add-on.

https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webserial

Allowing serial but not HID would be really strange. With HID you get standard identifiers that let you filter out devices that are too dangerous for the web. With serial you get nothing. Even if you know a device is dangerous, there's no way to protect users from it.

Hasn't FireFox been dragging their asses on @scope? https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/472

It took years to just convince them of the need for it. And I'm not sure anyone got convinced vs Chrome had already shipped it and Safari has it planned so they caved in.

Hard to believe FireFox used to be a leader of the modern web.

As mentioned by others, OK idea, but not a fan that this isn't standardized. After a quick search+peruse, these seem to indicate that it's not around the corner either. Happy (/hope) to be corrected.

https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/4180

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/990

Mozilla's position on these specs is nicely outlined publicly and transparently as part of their standards-positions project: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100

I'm kinda glad it's not implemented in my browser, to be honest, because the whole thing seems like a security nightmare.

It's a shame it impacts some hobby usecases, but I don't think this outweighs the reasoning set out on the GitHub issue.

This should have big warnings on it. Some of these are not web standards; they are features implemented unilaterally by Google in Blink that have been explicitly rejected by both Mozilla and Apple on privacy and security grounds.

Take Web Bluetooth, for example:

Mozilla:

> This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices.

— https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth

Apple:

> Here are some examples of features we have decided to not yet implement due to fingerprinting, security, and other concerns, and where we do not yet see a path to resolving those concerns

— https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/

This is Microsoft’s Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish bullshit applied to the web platform by Google. Google keeps implementing these things despite all other major rendering engines rejecting them, convinces people that they are part of the web, resulting in sites like this, then people start asking why Firefox and Safari are “missing functionality”. These are not part of the web platform, they are Google APIs that have been explicitly rejected.

Is BLE a PWA requirement? I think they explained their position pretty well here, regardless of whether I agree:

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...

I took a glance at Can I Use what the difference between the last public release of Firefox and Chrome is [1] and they don't really have that big of a difference in the eyes of normal use-cases? Some of these aren't implemented purely because of privacy reasons, the proposals aren't finished yet or complexity [2].

Why would Firefox need to change to Chromium engine? The only websites I notice that don't work with Firefox is because of user-agent targetting or just putting 5-second time-outs in Youtube code on non-chrome webbrowsers [3].

Can you give some examples of websites not working on Firefox?

[1] https://caniuse.com/?compare=chrome+120%2Cfirefox+121&compar...

[2] https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/

[3] https://www.neowin.net/news/youtube-seemingly-intentionally-...