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

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

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 11:49:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4BED70F6.6000708@mit.edu>
To: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 5/14/10 11:33 AM, François REMY wrote:
> I don't care.

That's very selfish of you.

> As long as the two essential properties
> are supported (color & background-color)

They're not supported interoperably across the browsers that implement 
unprefixes ::selection (in particular, not supported the same way in 
Opera and Webkit; I don't have an IE preview on hand to test).

> 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)

Why bother with specs at all then?  The "common" use case (as long as 
you don't try to actually do anything interesting) is already 
interoperable for most things; let's all pack up and go home.

> Well, in such case it's interesting. But why would
> you rename the ::selection pseudo class ?

Because what you implement is buggy and idiosyncratic and doesn't match 
what other browsers likely implement?

> 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.

But the point of prefixed versions is that if it's prefixed then you're 
free to change it to fix bugs or align with other browsers.  If everyone 
shipped different non-interoperable broken crap unprefixed all the time 
(as you seem to want them to do), you couldn't use the properties safely 
anyway without long lists of things to avoid, _and_ it would be more 
likely that sites would come to depend on a particular behavior, making 
a sane standard that much harder.

> Now this property has been used on the web,
> I don't think it's desirable to break the feature
> they're relying on.

This is EXACTLY why unprefixed broken stuff should not ship.  Thank you 
for making my case.

-Boris
Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 21:07:49 GMT

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