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

Re: A List Apart: Articles: Prefix or Posthack

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 17:32:54 -0700
Message-Id: <9996E08B-5CDA-425D-9F74-EE7343D5866E@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Rob Crowther <robertc@boogdesign.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
On Jul 10, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:

>> 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.

Frankly, I'd be happy if stayed around for one major release (or a year, whichever is longer). That's plenty of time IMO to add update the style sheets. 


> 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.

He would probably only notice when he upgraded his browser, and then complain to the intranet author (or Web-page-based tool provider) about why their crappy pages break every time the browser is updated. Didn't that vendor claim compatibility with browser X?

> It may also implicitly assume that most users do run the latest version of a 
> given browser.

Why is that? Old browsers are not affected by newer browsers, only by the removal or changing of the properties in the style sheets. 

> That is not always the case, especially for those widely used in government 
> and corporate environments. (e.g. IE6)

Yeah, tell me about it! :(

> 
> But while it may not fit everyone everywhere, it still sounds like a reasonable compromise 
> Between 'support forever' and 'take out that prefix asap'.

Right. Something in between is fine. 
Received on Sunday, 11 July 2010 00:34:01 GMT

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