I get the author's point, but it's a pretty minor quibble. Baseline is purposefully made to be an oversimplification. If your standards align with theirs (you target evergreen + latest Safari),...
I get the author's point, but it's a pretty minor quibble. Baseline is purposefully made to be an oversimplification. If your standards align with theirs (you target evergreen + latest Safari), then it's an easier lookup reference than CanIUse. A yes or no is easier than comparing graphs and release dates.
If your needs are more specialized (eg. your audience is more focused in India and China), then you need to target the more niche browsers like UC Browser instead. I've worked on a few global sites and have had to make other considerations (such as Google's CDN being occasionally blocked by the Chinese GFW). Using CanIUse instead of Baseline in those situations really isn't a problem.
So it doesn't really seem like a big deal at all. Use whichever tool matches your own requirements. Baseline is only that: a baseline.
Cascade layers are cool as heck by the way. Should be extremely useful for keeping specificity down, and avoiding some of the dumb hacks, unnecessary ID use, and !important spam in codebases. It...
Cascade layers are cool as heck by the way. Should be extremely useful for keeping specificity down, and avoiding some of the dumb hacks, unnecessary ID use, and !important spam in codebases. It feels like the natural evolution of Harry Roberts' ITCSS approach to writing maintainable CSS.
I want to agree, but… 90% compatibility for @layer. Oof. And those numbers don't get better if you limit your CanIUse query to the United States. I would love to have a simple standard to refer to...
I want to agree, but… 90% compatibility for @layer. Oof. And those numbers don't get better if you limit your CanIUse query to the United States.
I would love to have a simple standard to refer to for browser compat. I dunno if this one is good enough, though. I want more information.
I didn't touch on it, but I actually agree with you about @layer. That was probably the strongest example where expectations don't align with recommendations. I'd hesitate to use it in production...
I didn't touch on it, but I actually agree with you about @layer. That was probably the strongest example where expectations don't align with recommendations. I'd hesitate to use it in production now, with the possible exception of architecting a larger website that won't be launched for months yet.
Seeing some of the statistics, it makes me wonder about who these users are that aren't on evergreen update channels. Even some less-recent features like SharedArrayBuffer are only at 93%.
The one that's really killing me is :has() at 87%. Oh how I long for that selector. Come on Mozilla, make it happen already!
Still, things are a lot better in the era of evergreen browsers than they used to be. I'm sure a lot of these users are on older enterprise versions, or locked down hardware, and will create a "long tail" of support. But to see a brand new feature reach 90% so quickly is actually pretty incredible.
I get the author's point, but it's a pretty minor quibble. Baseline is purposefully made to be an oversimplification. If your standards align with theirs (you target evergreen + latest Safari), then it's an easier lookup reference than CanIUse. A yes or no is easier than comparing graphs and release dates.
If your needs are more specialized (eg. your audience is more focused in India and China), then you need to target the more niche browsers like UC Browser instead. I've worked on a few global sites and have had to make other considerations (such as Google's CDN being occasionally blocked by the Chinese GFW). Using CanIUse instead of Baseline in those situations really isn't a problem.
So it doesn't really seem like a big deal at all. Use whichever tool matches your own requirements. Baseline is only that: a baseline.
Cascade layers are cool as heck by the way. Should be extremely useful for keeping specificity down, and avoiding some of the dumb hacks, unnecessary ID use, and
!importantspam in codebases. It feels like the natural evolution of Harry Roberts' ITCSS approach to writing maintainable CSS.I want to agree, but… 90% compatibility for @layer. Oof. And those numbers don't get better if you limit your CanIUse query to the United States.
I would love to have a simple standard to refer to for browser compat. I dunno if this one is good enough, though. I want more information.
I didn't touch on it, but I actually agree with you about @layer. That was probably the strongest example where expectations don't align with recommendations. I'd hesitate to use it in production now, with the possible exception of architecting a larger website that won't be launched for months yet.
Seeing some of the statistics, it makes me wonder about who these users are that aren't on evergreen update channels. Even some less-recent features like SharedArrayBuffer are only at 93%.
The one that's really killing me is :has() at 87%. Oh how I long for that selector. Come on Mozilla, make it happen already!
Still, things are a lot better in the era of evergreen browsers than they used to be. I'm sure a lot of these users are on older enterprise versions, or locked down hardware, and will create a "long tail" of support. But to see a brand new feature reach 90% so quickly is actually pretty incredible.