W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2007

Re: [css3-text] Word wrap confirmation

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:00:33 -0600
Message-ID: <45EE00A1.1090007@mit.edu>
To: Daniel Beardsmore <public@telcontar.net>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Daniel Beardsmore wrote:
> I didn't say that it acts similarly, Boris did. But it would seem 
> better, if such a feature is defined in CSS (which it is), to at least 
> try to tie in one's implementation to real CSS

Only if your implementation actually follows the spec.  If your implementation 
is known to be seriously buggy, as far as the spec is concerned, giving it the 
spec name is a bad idea.  It means people can't use the spec version in their 
pages (for UAs that support it) because it'll break the page in your buggy UA.

It's standard procedure for the browser vendors who care about the health of the 
web to have vendor prefixes on the parts of their CSS support that's not really 
per spec yet, as well as on their extensions to the CSS standards ("-o" for 
opera, "-khtml" for KHTML, "-moz" for Gecko, etc).

In any case, in this case the value wasn't there in CSS2 and the implementation 
in Gecko predates its addition to CSS2.1.  So it was added with a vendor prefix, 
being an extension to the then-existing CSS standard.  Since CSS2.1 came on the 
scene, the implementation hasn't really been revisited to check whether it 
complies with what CSS2.1 says, so to be safe it's staying as a -moz- property.

> This is, though, how most browser development goes anyway :)

I should hope that "most browser development" doesn't mean that you take your 
CSS extensions that happen to do something similar to a standard feature and 
just give them the same name!

See also https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=261081 for what it's worth.

Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 00:00:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:28 UTC