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
re-prefixed.

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.

~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 10 July 2010 09:27:29 GMT

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