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

Re: Suggestion for generic CSS vendor prefix

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:44:53 -0700
Message-ID: <4BAA87D5.70405@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/24/2010 01:29 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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.

box-sizing is in a CR already.
   http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/#box-sizing

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 21:45:23 GMT

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