add css animations, gradients, multiple backgrounds, tranforms, text shadows, box shadows<p>then ill be impressed about improving an edge case on a feature other people implemented 5 years ago.
<i>First specified back in 2002, border-radius was already supported by Firefox 1.0 in 2004 as –moz-border-radius. Almost three years later, Safari 3.0 followed with –webkit-border-radius. In December 2009, the specification became a Candidate Recommendation. A few weeks ago, Opera’s 10.50 release was the first to add support the property without a vendor prefix.</i><p>This kind of wording continues to perpetuate that vendor prefixes are bad. Opera should only have implemented the property without the vendor prefix (although, technically, there's no such thing as a "property without the vendor prefix" and "a property with the vendor prefix", they are really two different properties with, by design, potentially different implementations) if it conforms to the agreed upon standard (I don't know if it does, Opera is good about that, so I assume it does). I don't expect anyone else to provide a bare border-radius property that doesn't conform to the standard, if they can't conform to the standard, they should be using vendor prefixes.<p>You know what we haven't seen enough of is vendor prefixed property names that provide different implementations so that developers and designers can try out different things in the same browser as a way to move towards a standard. -moz-foobar-a and -moz-foobar-b could be two implementations of the same property, that perhaps render differently based on an ambiguity in the proposal and which one gets picked for the foobar property is based on actual in-the-wild-use based on developer needs.
Unfortunately, the time when 95% of the users will have a decent browser is still years ahead of us. I wonder if by the time IE9 with rounded corners support is widespread, they'll lag behind the other browsers on css transforms...