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

Re: Suggestion for generic CSS vendor prefix

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:21:36 +1300
Message-ID: <11e306601003221421q36228394g5c530bb25e9118fd@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
The previous big thread on this topic explained very clearly why a generic
prefix is a bad idea.

1) Before the syntax and behavior of a property is frozen, different
browsers' implementation of the property are likely to vary, often because
their implementations reflect different versions of the draft spec. Using a
common prefix in this situation is a bad idea.
2) Once the syntax and behavior of a property is frozen, authors and
browsers should simply use the unprefixed version of the property.

If there is a problem we need to solve here, it's that for some properties
there's a long gap between the syntax and behavior freezing and the spec
going into CR, at which time unprefixed implementations are officially
allowed. Fixing that requires a change in policy and/or process.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]
Received on Monday, 22 March 2010 21:22:08 GMT

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