W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Purpose of ring 0 and vendor prefixes (was: Re: Ringmark is now open source)

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 08:19:14 +0000
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBC806D8.80BE2%tobie@fb.com>

On 4/30/12 12:49 PM, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote:
>> On 4/17/12 11:04 AM, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>Tobie Langel wrote:
>>>> I aware of and concerned about the current prefix issues and regret
>>>> situation as much as anyone else here.
>>>Note that test suites can, to some extent, affect browser priorities.
>>>Not using Ringmark to affect the prefixing situation to the liking of
>>>this group would mean missing opportunity to make things better.
>>>(I think the prefixing concept is flawed so I wish scoring on
>>>http://html5test.com/ and http://css3test.com/ didn't give a full
>>>green pass for prefixed implementations in order to make browsers that
>>>ship unprefixed score higher in order to incent browsers to unprefix
>>>or to ship without prefix from the start.)
>> I'm worried this could be a heated debate and I'd rather punt for now.
>I think it's going to be a problem if the group doesn't have a common
>understanding of what it's trying to do in this area.  I think it
>would be better to discuss this up front.
>>>I think the existence of this stage of life cycle is a obvious bug. If
>>>a feature works well enough to be commonly used in production, it in
>>>practice isn't an experimental feature and shouldn't be prefixed. I
>>>think it would make sense for Ringmark to set up incentives that steer
>>>towards the elimination of this bug.
>> Others will disagree. Let's not have this conversation for now. :)
>In my case personally, the outcome of this conversation would be a
>pretty significant factor in understanding what this group is about
>and whether what it is about is positive.

Isn't the vendor-prefix conversation already happening in the CSS WG? If
so, I suggest we just wait for the output of that group and apply it to
the CG (and its test suites).

If it's not, it's certainly something the CG can tackle. In which case, I
think it should be framed within the production of a useful document on
the topic.

I don't mind a heated debate but I'd like it to be a) productive and b)
not a distraction from the main goals of the CG.


Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 08:19:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:46 UTC