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

Re: A List Apart: Articles: Prefix or Posthack

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 02:26:50 -0700
Message-ID: <4C383CDA.6010901@inkedblade.net>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
CC: "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 07/09/2010 01:30 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
>> Behalf Of Eric A. Meyer
>>      I don't understand the distinction you're drawing, but maybe
>> because I come at it from a different direction.  Once a spec hits CR
>> or is even ready to hit CR, at which point bare properties can be
>> supported in conforming implementations, there shouldn't be any more
>> changes to behavior.  That's what I'm trying to accomplish here.
> Not to confuse things further but specs can go in and out of CR with
> implementations shipping in between those transitions. Box-shadow, for
> instance, came back into Backgrounds&  Borders after the spec hit CR.
> By which time one vendor - Opera - had implemented some of the spec's
> Properties without a prefix. Your expectations imply we may want to
> CR features i.e. we CR border images even though we're still working on
> the box-shadow part of the spec; the WG discussed that recently and agreed
> it may be desirable in the future. Do you agree ?

I think if the spec went back for a fixed set of changes, and is expected
to return to CR soon, then those features that were in the CR need not be

However if the spec is pulled from CR for a major rewrite (e.g. CSS3 Text),
then its features should be prefixed. I hope we will not need to do that
to other specs in the future, though.

Received on Saturday, 10 July 2010 09:27:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:34:39 UTC