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

Re: Suggestion for generic CSS vendor prefix

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:29:13 +0100
To: robert@ocallahan.org, "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u929uzkw64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:07:19 +0100, Aryeh Gregor  
<Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:21 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.
>
> So does anyone have a specific proposal on how to fix this?  What
> would be an appropriate procedure to freeze syntax for a given
> property and allow unprefixed use?  There have been some fairly
> specific suggestions from the "introduce a shared prefix" camp, but no
> one has come up with an actual proposal for dropping prefixes sooner
> (that I've seen).  This is a real problem, and a solution is needed.

I think for properties that are relatively stable we should just declare  
them "implementable" regardless of what the status is of the draft  
specification they happen to be in. If a property is declared  
"implementable" it can be implemented without prefix and major changes to  
the property will no longer be made unless major issues are found.  
Properties on this list would include e.g. overflow-x, overflow-y, and  
box-sizing.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 20:29:51 GMT

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