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

RE: A List Apart: Articles: Prefix or Posthack

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:39:50 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Rob Crowther <robertc@boogdesign.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E215181B7@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of fantasai
> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:38 AM
> To: Rob Crowther
> Cc: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: A List Apart: Articles: Prefix or Posthack
> 
> On 07/09/2010 09:47 AM, Rob Crowther wrote:
> > Richard Fink wrote:
> >> Ok, there's a fair case to be made for an expiration. Never say
> "Never".
> >> But why should one release cycle be the trigger? I'm sorry, but that
> >> seems
> >> kind of arbitrary, if not solipsistic.
> >
> > If dropping the prefix is to be tied to release cycles, why not make
> the
> > number cycles before dropping it be proportional to the number of
> > release cycles during which the prefixed version existed?
> 
> This makes sense to me.

That does sound very pragmatic. But it means some properties - like -moz-border-radius 
- could be with us for 3/4 more releases depending on how you count. By the time we
reach the final deadline, someone somewhere will demand why oh why something that has
worked fine for so many years was taken out and broke his corporate intranet search
page. It may also implicitly assume that most users do run the latest version of a 
given browser. That is not always the case, especially for those widely used in government 
and corporate environments. (e.g. IE6)

But while it may not fit everyone everywhere, it still sounds like a reasonable compromise 
Between 'support forever' and 'take out that prefix asap'.
Received on Saturday, 10 July 2010 23:40:45 GMT

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