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

Re: Suggestion for generic CSS vendor prefix

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:07:52 -0700
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1003221507q1917a346o10d36cd01178cb86@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> 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.

Indeed, THIS is where we can help authors out.  A unified draft prefix
will *not* do any good, and will instead be painful to authors who
don't realize that browsers may implement the property differently at
first, or may implement different drafts.  (The suggestion of using
draft, draft2, draft3, etc. doesn't help here, because different
browsers may still end up with different behavior based on the same
draft, before interop problems are discovered and clarified.)

Though it wasn't in this particular email, I find it darkly amusing
that a common example of a ridiculous situation that would be fixed by
a single draft prefix is border-radius, when Firefox's behavior for
-moz-border-radius is *not* what the current draft says.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 22 March 2010 22:08:39 GMT

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