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

Re: vendor prefix properties diverging from official properties

From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:56:54 -0400
Message-ID: <7c2a12e21003181656y35b6e17g9f0b49f99ae4b0b9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Cc: Fran├žois REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
> In principle, having a common prefix on CSS-draft properties sounds like a sensible idea, and certainly apperas to reduce author confusion and effort.
>
> In practice, however, there are serious problems with the proposal. The key here is that a browser implementation of a CSS draft property is a snapshot in time of the specification of that property at the time of implementation. If the draft is revised, it's not the case that all browsers suddenly revise their implementations to match; not only is there a limit on engineering time, but browsers typically have 6-12mo release cycles, so implementation is bound to lag specification.
>
> So having -w3c-image-fit is no more a guarantee of a particular behavior for an author than -moz-image-fit or -webkit-image-fit; in fact, it's probably less so.

My suggestion was that if the syntax changed incompatibly and there
was a notable existing implementation, a number could be appended:
draft-image-fit2 or draft2-image-fit or such.  This is somewhat ugly,
but it retains the practical benefits without drawbacks that I can
see.
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2010 23:57:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:25 GMT