Remove manual vendor prefixes in modern (2016) manner: PostCSS + autoprefixer

[lkraav]

This closes #351 #377 #447 #505 #536 #547 #550

[yahoocla]

Thank you for submitting this pull request, however I do not see a valid CLA on file for you. Before we can merge this request please visit https://yahoocla.herokuapp.com/ and agree to the terms. Thanks! 😄

[yahoocla]

CLA is valid!

[tivac]

Is PureCSS being renamed?

[lkraav]

Not at all, this is my personal work in progress branch that I use for clients. We're still working on transitioning the project to new maintainership with yahoo guys.

[JohnRomanski]

Maybe this shouldn't be in a PR on the pure master repo then?

[redonkulus]

@lkraav what do you want to do with this? We should remove the personal repo changes before trying to pull this in. Also need to make sure we test this thoroughly since we will be relying on post processing now.

[lkraav]

@redonkulus I killed off my shop specifics. This should be ripe for picking now. I'm not sure what "need to test this" means for you here. I've been running this on production sites, without issues, for several months. But no automated testing suite yes. I'd be super interested in getting https://github.com/casperjs/casperjs or similar going, but simply haven't had the time to get going with an initial setup. Thoughts?

[redonkulus]

@lkraav the changes you made look ok to me. Do we have to remove bower in this PR? I'd rather do it as a separate PR because the pure-site repo uses bower from Pure to pull the version number and some other meta data.

As for testing, we basically need manual testing in the browsers listed here to be confident that the prefixed properties are still created and do not cause any issues.

[redonkulus]

I closed a similar PR for this because I was afraid of introducing these styles to the footer. Is it common for the table footer to have the same style as the thead?

[absalomedia]

Hey @lkraav just wondering if you're rolling up my PR I gave you regarding IE8+ compliance & W3C validation into this?

[lkraav]

@lkraav the changes you made look ok to me. Do we have to remove bower in this PR? I'd rather do it as a separate PR because the pure-site repo uses bower from Pure to pull the version number and some other meta data.

I'm thinking, let's not do anything that delays the release at the moment. If bower helps the more important things to get out there, let it stay in for now.

As for testing, we basically need manual testing in the browsers listed here to be confident that the prefixed properties are still created and do not cause any issues.

So we use browserstack.com to take screenshots of a set of test target pages with a set of browsers, or how has that worked in the past? (Lord almighty, how I'd like to automate this part..)

[lkraav]

Hey @lkraav just wondering if you're rolling up my PR I gave you regarding IE8+ compliance & W3C validation into this?

@absalomedia could you retarget your PR towards this repo instead? I think it would make it easier to go through together with @redonkulus.

[redonkulus]

Replaced by #617