Re: Should implementors copy vendor prefixes from each other?

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Daniel Glazman <
daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:

> But browser vendors also say they use prefixes to allow evolution
> of the prefixed property w/o long-term impact on the non-prefixed
> property. I have the gut feeling this is a bad excuse. If
> -webkit-transition-delay has to change a bit because of standardization,
> browsers implementing the new version will still choke on stylesheets
> conformant to the old one.
>

Not at all. Webkit can keep implementing the old behaviour of
-webkit-transition-delay and implement the standard behaviour for the
unprefixed property.

>From my personal point of view, I'm not far from considering prefixes
> as we use them today are in fact painful and harmful.  They should
> probably be reserved to strictly proprietary properties.
>

I don't agree. I think prefixes have been demonstrably useful to avoid
premature freezing of behaviours and pollution of the CSS property
namespace, for example border-radius.

Stylesheets that insist on catering to pre-standardization implementations
of new features, as well as the standard feature, have to use a plethora of
rules, but I think that's a small price to pay for the integrity of the
standards process. I think we should carry on with the prefix policies we've
been using.

I don't think it's a good idea for one engine to implement another engine's
prefixed properties. I think that also strikes against the integrity of the
standards process by enshrining one engine's implementation as the de facto
standard.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]