W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Should implementors copy vendor prefixes from each other?

From: Jonathan Snook <jonathan.snook@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 15:50:09 -0400
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <6EE792B3-5264-403C-98FA-2ACD519EF888@gmail.com>
To: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
On 14-May-09, at 7:41 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> When implementors are implementing experimental properties that have
> already been implemented by other vendors, should they copy vendor
> prefixes from each other, or not?

A vendor prefix signals to the author that the property is not  
standardized but I suspect most would feel that a vendor prefixed  
property implementation would be stable. Using a hypothetical opacity  
property: -ms-opacity: 50%; Authors would assume that would continue  
to work and that in some future revision -ms-opacity wouldn't suddenly  
switch to use .5 instead of 50%.

For that reason, having another vendor copy an established prefix of  
another vendor would signal to the author that the feature works  
relatively consistent between those two vendors.

Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> 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.

What's the problem with enshrining one engine's implementation as a de  
facto standard? If it's de facto, codify it and make it de jure. Then  
new browsers can use the non-prefixed property.

Received on Saturday, 16 May 2009 19:50:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:26 UTC