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

Re: Selectors, vendor prefixes (again...) and IE9 and Opera and WebKit

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 17:33:42 +0200
Message-ID: <F108601A07A14041BCEF6CBE823221EB@FREMY2>
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
From: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
> On 5/14/10 6:45 AM, François REMY wrote:
>> If every UA has an implementation of ::selection,
>
> Which are all wildly different, right?

I don't care. As long as the two essential properties
are supported (color & background-color), I think
further discussion about ::selection can be left for
later, as it's sufficiently interoperable for my own
use of the property (and, more globaly, to the vast
majority of all uses-cases of this pseudo-class)

>
>> Vendor-prefixing is not fair.
>
> Care to expand on that?  What's not fair about not polluting/coopting 
> future standards by your naming choices?

Well, in such case it's interesting. But why would
you rename the ::selection pseudo class ? As a
web developer, I've the feeling that no property
should stay too long in a prefixed version, since
it's pretty difficult to use the feature then, and,
even worse, it occults the feature for every UA
for which we didn't include the prefixed version.

Now this property has been used on the web,
I don't think it's desirable to break the feature
they're relying on. Instead, we should focus our
attention on the standardisation of this feature.
Interoperability is the key, I never said things
should be otherly.

> -Boris 
Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 15:34:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:27 GMT