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: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:09:02 -0700
Message-Id: <DBCB0507-4476-4BB4-AD70-21C536484DD4@gmail.com>
Cc: "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On Jul 11, 2010, at 1:23 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> Webkit is more flexible about things, but once they've implemented
> something that has widespread use (for some arbitrary judgement of
> "widespread"), they have a responsibility not to break those uses.
> This has happened with border-image in non-Web applications that are rendered with Webkit, which is why Webkit has to maintain
> -webkit-border-image in parallel with border-image. (Web content,
> because it is usually written for multiple browsers, is less likely
> to be as dependent on a prefixed property, so is less likely to
> trigger this responsibility.)

Actually, even with Web content they have this issue when it comes to iPhone Web apps, which are written with the assumption that they will be run in Safari Mobile. Thus, these Web apps usually make heavy use of '-webkit-border-image' for native-looking buttons (which look different than what you'd get with, say, a default submit button). This will probably continue until most users are on a version of iOS that supports the un-prefixed version. 

> So Webkit would (and did) consider a -webkit2-border-image, but
> in general tries to avoid this. Microsoft seems likely to version
> its prefixed properties if they need to change. And Mozilla probably
> won't.

Yeah, lucky thing that Gecko does not have 100% market share on a particular phone, or they would have this terrible problem like the one Apple has to suffer with. 
Received on Sunday, 11 July 2010 16:10:04 GMT

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