W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > April 2006

Re: [comment] XMLHttpRequest Object - Address Extensibility

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 04:17:31 +0000 (UTC)
To: Brad Fults <bfults@gmail.com>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0604260416090.21459@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Brad Fults wrote:
> 
> In case you didn't pick up on it, that example was modeled largely after 
> the various |opacity| implementations. So this assumption isn't a very 
> far stretch, as it has already happened in the past.

Opacity is a great example of why vendor prefixes are important. Opacity 
was implemented differently in each experimental implementation before the 
specification was written, and if the UAs had all use 'opacity' as the 
property name, the CSS working group would have been unable to take the 
experience of those implementations into account in designing the real 
feature. (Or, would have been forced to call it something else.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 04:17:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:55 GMT