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

Re: A List Apart: Articles: Prefix or Posthack

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:34:43 -0700
Message-ID: <4C3698D3.6030805@mit.edu>
To: "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On 7/8/10 7:41 PM, Eric A. Meyer wrote:
> I know you're asking Richard, but I'll step in and ask why it costs more
> than a little to do, in effect, this:
>
> if (property == '-moz-box-shadow' || property == 'box-shadow') boxShadow();

If that's all you want, I'm not sure why you want it; see below.

In any case, it looks like we had some infrastructure for this sort of 
aliasing added in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93156 but 
it was removed in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458588

Note that this was an alias, not the sort of thing that webkit and IE do 
(where the prefixed property continues to behave differently from the 
unprefixed one if it did so to start with).

> As it is, your choice to drop prefixed-property support is hostile to
> authors

Why is it more hostile than having the alias would be?  Any use case 
that's covered by having aliases with behavior identical to the 
unprefixed property in the browser is covered by the author doing, for 
your example above:

   -moz-box-shadow: ...;
   box-shadow: ...;

as far as I can tell.  Am I missing something?

-Boris
Received on Friday, 9 July 2010 03:35:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:29 GMT