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

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

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 21:50:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4BEDA9A1.2020109@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Le 14/05/10 19:48, L. David Baron a écrit :

> I don't think it's that simple.
>
> First, I don't think one of the co-chairs of the working group has
> the power to revoke, by himself, a Call for Implementations issued
> by the WG / the W3C.

I never intended to do that and always said the CSS WG will decide on
that. Second, we have a hole in our process here: we call for implem
on features w/o prefix when we reach CR but a CR does not automatically
mean the spec can't go back to WD. We absolutely need discuss that.
A feature that is dropped should get its prefixes back.

> Second, I think that unless the working group has a better system
> for moving things to call-for-implementations faster (i.e., with a
> lighter weight process), browsers are going to be under a lot of
> pressure to ignore the working group and drop prefixes when things
> are reasonably interoperable.

Then it'll be difficult to move from "reasonably" to "fully" because
users will claim the web services they implemented rely on the
"reasonable" interoperability and "full" interoperability will
break (a few) things. All in all, this means the whole vendor prefix
system has a severe flaw.

I already said in the past in this mailing-list that our vendor prefix
policy has to be observed and possibly updated.

</Daniel>
Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 19:51:29 GMT

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