W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2010

Re: vendor prefix properties diverging from official properties

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:41:58 +0100
Message-ID: <458B466AC4A94B8A8FA7550E7CED7A56@Fremy1>
To: "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Zack Weinberg" <zweinberg@mozilla.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
I strongly agree.

It would be a great benefit for everyone if we could
use -wd-border-radius instead of a combinaison of
-moz-border-radius and -webkit-border-radius.

Browser prefixes remains great for features that are
browser-related or that are not part of any working
draft, but for features browser would like to introduce
in the real world, a -wd- prefix seems better.

Regards,
François

[BTW, I don't like 'draft' as it's too long to type, nor
'-w3c-'  since it would mean that w3c properties are
not well defined and implemented by browsers, while
the objective of the w3c is the complete opposite.
'-wd-' seems better to my.]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:28 PM
To: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Zack Weinberg" <zweinberg@mozilla.com>; <www-style@w3.org>
Subject: Re: vendor prefix properties diverging from official properties

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Sylvain Galineau
> <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> This topic has come up before; see 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0105.html.
>>
>> Notably, a -w3c prefixed was proposed.
>
> There didn't seem to be any real resolution there.  Everyone agreed
> that Mozilla supporting -webkit- properties was a bad idea, but I
> didn't see any real objections to some standard prefix for drafts,
> like -w3c- or -*- or -wd- or draft- or whatever.  Does anyone have any
> problems with that, for browsers that fully implement a property from
> a CSS draft?  Vendor prefixes could still be reserved for non-standard
> properties, and implementations that are so incomplete or buggy that
> the vendor doesn't want to inflict them on the general public yet.
> 
Received on Friday, 26 February 2010 20:42:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:24 GMT