Table of CSS3 border-radius Compliance
Last updated August 26, 2010 – added information about Firefox 4.0
border-radius seems to be a hot topic these days, what with CSS3 including it and some broswer vendors already implementing it. I just think it looks nice.I found conflicting information when I was out there researching how best to use border-radius so I finally sat down and wasted way too much time coming up to speed on the current state of affairs. Even after many readings, some of the wording in the proposed specification can be confusing. I’ve done my best to get things right here. In the table below, it is assumed that for Firefox you include the -moz- prefix.
The top half of this table is looking pretty good these days, if you ignore the elephant in the room whose name will not be mentioned (until later). Eventually this page will be a syntax reference instead of a compliance table. That will be a Good Thing.
Safari and Chrome
Big news, everyone! Safari 5 is out and has caught up with Google Chrome. Still hard to believe that border radii expressed as a percentage is not there. Seems like a trivial patch.
If you do not need to support older versions of Chrome or Safari (and Apple’s Software Update will make sure Safari 4 goes away very quickly), then the -webkit- prefix is a thing of the past! In fact, as soon as I finish typing this, I’m removing it from the style sheets for this page. I recommend that everyone does the same, since at least one -webkit-prefixed style is non-standard.
Firefox 3
As of Firefox 3.6.3, it is still necessary to use the -moz- prefix. More importantly, the syntax for specifying individual corners is different for Mozilla. I tested to see if the latest might also accept the syntax from the spec, but it did not. For the time being I believe it’s better to use the shorthand to specify the different corners. That way your CSS markup will be the same as the standard except for the -moz- prefix.
Firefox 4
As of this writing (August 26, 2010), Firefox 4.0 beta 4 is, as far as I can tell, exactly like Firefox 3.6 when it comes to border-radius. It still requires a -moz- prefix and still has the property names for the individual corners wrong. I find this disappointing. I encourage all Firefox beta-testers to click the feedback button and let them know that we’d all like border-radius to meet standards.
Opera
Opera 10.5 has border-radius and it’s pretty complete. There are a couple of odd bugs that make me think they just need to look at this page and their programmer will slap his head and say “d’oh!” and all will be well in the next release.
Internet Explorer
I’ve heard that Internet Explorer 9 will implement border-radius. Once more the Web design community is hoping that the next IE release will be the one that brings it into the modern era, so that we can use the new stuff for more than just decoration. Just like we were hoping with IE8. And IE7.
Other notes
I used SVG graphics to create most of the images for the specification column. That way I was able to type in the exact drawing commands based on my interpretation of the spec. The graphics are my own work and any errors are all my fault.
So here’s the table. I’ll try to remember to update this as new browser releases come out, but you can help too! If there are interesting cases that should be in the table, or if I’m slacking and browser support has changed, please drop me a note!
| property definition | CSS3 Specification | Webkit Safari 5.0.1 Chrome 5.0.375 with NO prefix | Mozilla Firefox 3.6.3 Firefox 4.0b4 with -moz- prefix | your browser with prefixes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| border-radius: 15px; |  | | | |
| border-radius: 20px 10px; |  | | | |
| border-top-left-radius: 20px; /* -moz-border-radius-topleft */ |  | | | |
| border-top-left-radius: 40px 20px; |  | | | |
| border-radius: 20px 10px 5px 30px; |  | | | |
| border-radius: 20px / 10px; |  | | | |
| border-radius: 20px 10px / 20px 10px; | | | | |
| border-radius: 20px 10px 5px 15px / 10px 25px; |  | | | |
| border-top-left-radius: 20px 10px; border-top-right-radius: 10px 25px; border-bottom-right-radius: 5px 10px; border-bottom-left-radius: 15px 25px; | | | | |
| border-radius:50%; |  |  | | |
| border-left: solid 20px;
border-top: solid 20px;
border-top-left-radius:40px; /* radius is applied to outer edge of border */ |  | | | |
| border-left: solid 30px;
border-top: solid 30px;
border-top-left-radius:20px; /* radius less than border thickness */ |  | | | |
| border-left: solid 4px;
border-top: solid 30px;
border-top-left-radius:20px; /* radius less than thicker edge */ |  |  | | |
| border-left: solid 4px;
border-top: solid 15px;
border-top-left-radius:30px; /* radius greater than thicker edge */ |  |  |  | |
| border-top: solid 15px;
border-top-left-radius:30px; /* thick edge on top, no border on side */ |  |  |  | |
| border-left: solid 20px white;
border-top: solid 20px white;
border-top-left-radius:40px; /* border lighter than div's background */ |  |  | | |
| border-top-left-radius: 120px 60px;
border-top-right-radius: 120px 60px;
border-bottom-right-radius: 20px 20px;
border-bottom-left-radius: 20px 20px; /* top horizontal radii add up to 240px, four times the width of the div. Therefore ALL radii are divided by four. */ |  | | | |
| border-top-left-radius: 200% 100%;
border-top-right-radius: 200% 100%;
border-bottom-right-radius: 33% 33%;
border-bottom-left-radius: 33% 33%; /* top horizontal radii add up to 400%, therefore ALL radii are divided by four. */ | | | | |
| border-left: dashed 2px; border-top: dashed 2px; border-top-left-radius: 40px 20px; |  | |  | |
| border-left: solid 15px blue; border-top: solid 15px red; border-top-left-radius: 50px 25px; | Who the heck knows? Click to see my attempt at interpreting the spec. |  |  | |
| border-left: solid 30px blue; border-top: solid 30px red; border-top-left-radius: 40px/20px; |  |  |
Border is drawn in a way that does not match the proposed specification.
Border is drawn correctly but property name is different. Specifically, Mozilla specifies individual corners differently. Web designers should use the different syntax with the understanding that it will be obsolete later. Later rows in the table assume you understand that Mozilla is different.
Technically wrong, but not by much. Considering the things that the draft doesn't specify, the angle of the line between the colors seems pretty minor. The spec also "recommends" a gradient. NOTE: I am reviewing this right now; I suspect that Webkit is also subtly wrong. The spec uses English to describe a complex geometric relationship, rather than using math. There are several places they could have removed ambiguity and made compliance easier just by using numbers rather than words.
These two rows are exactly equivalent in terms of the CSS3 specification. I color-coded the values to indicate how the browser should expand the shorthand into the longhand.
The CSS3 draft merely says the transition between borders of different thicknesses be smooth, so although the Mozilla implementation does not match the illustration in the spec (it uses an elliptical curve on the interior where the illustration in the draft uses a circular curve), it is probably compliant. Web developers note that they cannot rely on inner borders looking exactly the same between fully-compliant browsers.
More on Webkit (Safari and Chrome)
I’ve looked at the webkit border-drawing code, and they’re going to need a pretty basic rewrite to address the parts of this table that Chrome and Safari still do not do correctly. For those following at home, most of this is being worked on as Webkit bug 9197, which is assigned and under active development. (There’s a cool interactive border-radius test case attached to the bug as well). I’m glad to see that lots of people are taking the issue seriously — I’d gone over there with an idea of fixing it myself if no one was working on it; luckily for me someone is. Unluckily for me, I’m not at all fond of the way they are doing it. Always easier to coach from the stands, however; if their way works, it’s perfect (though they still won’t be able to do border gradient colors). I’ll track this change as it progresses through the approval process. I’m kind of curious how that all works.
Copyright ⓒ 2009 Jerry Seeger
All Rights reserved until I get that creative commons thing figured out.
Boy, I tell you, being able to type the drawing instructions into an SVG graphic file sure made drawing the exact images a lot easier. Too bad I couldn’t use the .svg images in the page. *cough*InternetExplorer*cough*
[...] Until more browsers begin to support CSS3, these options are a good way to increasing backwards compatibility with pure CSS. If you’re wondering how specific browsers handle the specification, this table has the results organized nicely. [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Cala, Alexey Simonenko. Alexey Simonenko said: Отличия реализации #CSS3-свойства border-radius в текущих браузерах: http://bit.ly/KUxXM [...]
Very interesting.
By the way, in the 3rd and 4th row I think it should be:
top-left
while it is now:
top-right
Ameen
You are quire correct. I never was that good at left and right. (Don’t even ask about the alphabet.) I’ll fix that right now. Thanks!
thank you, very complete guide
Here’s one that’s always bugged me: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobthecow/4046038689/
Interesting. I’ll look into that. Looks like a useful addition to the table. Tanks!
I wonder if my not setting a background color in the divs above has hidden other problems as well. I’ll have to experiment a bit. Thanks once again.
Updated to Firefox 3.5.4. No changes that I could detect; I checked for support of non-prefixed standard border-top-left-radius but no change there either.
[...] Web | Table of CSS3 border-radius Compliance Vía | CSS [...]
What a great compat. table! It should be noted that Chrome 4b’s webkit (on Mac) get’s nearly everything right, except the 3 thick-thin tests towards the bottom.
Nice to hear the Webkit development stuff is getting closer to the mainstream.
[...] Table of CSS3 border-radius Compliance Tableau du support de la propriété CSS 3 border-radius [...]
[...] Table of CSS3 border-radius Compliance [...]
[...] Table of CSS3 border-radius Compliance – Es ist an der Browser-Front noch viel zu tun bis man von wirklich umfassender [...]
Interesting overview, thanks!
One minor issue: your sidebar hides the table partly – can you reduce the width somehow?
If you look at the css for this page, you will see the class ‘fatass’. I tried to make the table skinnier, but I didn’t want line breaks in the code fragments, and I wanted the pictures to be big enough to be useful.
When I make my window thinner, though, the sidebar does not overlap the main table, and I’m surprised it did for you. What browser are you using?
Good overview, but the same thing happens for me in all my browsers:
- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091102 Firefox/3.5.5 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
- Google Chrome 3.0.195.33
- IE 8.0.6001.18821
- Safari 4.0.4 (531.21.10)
It’s affecting the table with id=”corner_table”
Thanks – it’s something to do with the preformatted setting I used for whitespace. I have no idea why the line breaks are not being respected on some browsers (all except the one I normally use). I’ll fiddle with it and get things working.
[Edit] to be specific, single line breaks were working, while two consecutive line breaks were ignored (Except in Safari for Mac). Everything should be fine now.
[...] em CSS transformando cantos de div em bordas com cantos arredondados. « [...]
[...] This post was Twitted by indie_preneur [...]
Opera has gone the plain border-radius way, as you can check in their latest builds available in http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/
It’s still pre-alpha quality, but comes with lots of goodies http://my.opera.com/ODIN/blog/opera-10-5-pre-alpha-build-released-here-is-whats-new
Very exciting! Thanks!
You’ve commented in the blog that you won’t add this until it’s a stable release, but for any passers by reading this blog, all examples match the CSS3 Spec perfectly in Opera 10.5 except for /* radius less than border thickness */ and /* radius less than thicker edge */ which both look really bizarre in Opera.
Screenshot: http://files.myopera.com/lucideer/files/border-radius.png
They look somewhat similar to some effect you might expect to get using SVG paths actually…
I expect they are using their SVG library to draw the borders, and with just a little more tweaking they will have it all correct. Hooray Opera! If they do a really good job I won’t need to add a column to the table. No telling how long it will take them to get 10.5 even to beta, though.
I really should have thought of putting a link to a screen shot at least, and now you’ve saved me the trouble. Thanks!
WebKit has some pretty ugly hacks in their border-drawing code and eventually I think they are going to have to redo large parts of it. At that point I wouldn’t be surprised to see SVG in use there as well. Ellipses are much easier with SVG than with the ‘native’ WebKit path api.
[...] Так как CSS3 ещё не является утвержденным стандартом, то браузеры используют собственные методы скругления. Чтобы понять специфику скругления каждым браузером, приводим таблицу: [...]
[...] Table of CSS3 border-radius Compliance (visual illustration) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Best Collection of CSS Rounded Corners Tutorials This entry was written by Gnocchi, posted on January 7, 2010 at 10:24 pm, filed under CSS. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « CSS: text shadow [...]
Here’s some more issues with border-radius implementations not adhering to spec if anyone’s interested: http://frans.lowter.us/test/2010/border-radius/
Ooo, nice! I was thinking about investigating that stuff. If it’s all right with you, I’d like to borrow some of your effort to add clipping to this table, although your link shows it much better than the little cells of my table could.
I’m curious how content clipping works with dashed borders as well.
“If it’s all right with you”
Sorry, but I can’t take credit for finding the bugs linked above. That goes to Frenzie: http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=374341
Nice work!
Altough I would also love to see percentage border-radii tested, e.g.:
border-radius:50%;
The above would effectively draw a circle (or ellipse, for that matter)
Also, maybe you could include Opera 10.5 (pre-alpha at the time writing) in the tests?
Thanks again!
Sure enough, percentages are in the spec. I’ll play with those; there are a couple of edge cases I’m curious about.
Opera 10.5 is discussed above (there’s a link to a screen shot in the comments), and by the time it reaches beta I’ll have to figure out how to make this table even wider – unless they do such a good job I can make the first column “the spec and Opera”. Here’s hoping…
Good call on the percentages. WebKit does not even have them implemented in the nightly builds yet.
[...] things. For now, just make a mental note about it. If you are too curious, then you can go [ Here ] and read all about it! Share How to Styles and themes, UBB.threads, Version 7.5.5, [...]
[paraphrase]
I do not like the seagull, and I wish you would get rid of it.
[/paraphrase]
Edited by Jerry
The duck is far more appropriate in this place than your language, and is a reminder to myself not to take all this nonsense too seriously.
Since I’ve complained about the bird before, I just want you to know I’m not oily. ERrr, at least not the commenter oily. As for my hair/personality/investment strategy, Ha! THe color legend might be helpful if it came before the table. Since the table is so long, and it takes a while to get to explanation of why you colored stuff.
[...] Table of CSS3 border-radius Compliance [...]
.border-radius is not supported by Internet Explorer.
Do you have any plans to update this page? I notice that there’s been much improvement, but some things still don’t work. Also, IE9 seems to have mastered border-radius.
I do keep the table up to date, but there are a couple of things missing right now – a column for Opera and one for the latest Chrome release. Google has been faster than Apple at getting webkit advances to the public (the green-outlined cells in the table work in Chrome). Opera 10.5 gets most things right. Firefox and Safari are up-to-date in the table, and IE9 is not worth bothering with yet.
The remaining issues in webkit (Chrome and Safari) will not be fixed until the border-drawing code is overhauled (borders are drawn with strokes, which makes tapering anything impossible, and clipping areas don’t line up properly with the edges of the borders). I was sorely tempted to dive in until I got a paying gig. Opera 10.5 just needs to add a few test cases to get the last parts right.
[...] If you are interested in how different browsers currently handle the border-radius properties, Jerry Seeger has a very useful & graphical table to help you [...]
[...] Table of CSS3 border-radius Compliance (Muddled Ramblings and Half-Baked Ideas) [...]
[...] Table of CSS3 border-radius Compliance (Muddled Ramblings and Half-Baked Ideas) [...]
This is a sweet reference for future use! Thanks!
coollll but in Thailand has still use IE6 = =”
Thanks.
I am using Firefox 3.6.4 and noticed the second row
looked different than what you had for Firefox (3.6.3).
On checking the css, for some reason the br20px10px
class is completely empty.
Hm… I see what you mean. I recently redid the css it looks like I deleted the wrong line from that class when I removed all the -webkit- prefixes. As soon as I can get to the file (it’s complicated) I’ll get that fixed.
Thanks for pointing it out!
As a side effect, however, that does show that Firefox still requires the -moz- prefix as of 3.6.4
[...] can support this feature. You can try view demo below in different browsers to see it live or follow this useful site that states a complete table on the browsers compatibility. Read more why it is so.Use the [...]
if you add
border-left-radius: 0 solid;
(or rather the corresponding -moz-property) to the following example:
border-top: solid 15px;
border-top-left-radius:30px;
it looks like in the spec.
that’s cool because that way you can choose which one you would like to have.
I played with a few permutations of your suggestion (‘solid’ is not a border-radius property, for instance), but nothing I did generated the desired result. If you could test the proper thing to add using firebug and then report back, that would be awesome.
[...] More about browser compatibility and comparison can be found in this very informative post by Jerry Seeger . [...]
Safari 5 won’t run on my system; I have no choice but to remain with Safari 4, so all your boxes are square.
Hm… I took out the -webkit- prefixes to keep things simpler on my end. In general almost everyone upgrades immediately. I hadn’t considered that Safari 5 might not work on older systems. I should probably go back and put the prefixes back in.