- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:14:27 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alexander Shpack <shadowkin@gmail.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 22, 2011, at 8:15 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Alexander Shpack <shadowkin@gmail.com> wrote: >> Using of four (or more) browser specific properties make css file unreadable. >> >> I propose replace this list >> >> something: foo; >> -moz-something: foo; >> -o-something: foo; >> -webkit-something: foo; >> -ms-something: foo; >> ... >> >> by >> something: foo; >> *-something: foo; >> >> UA will use standard if it possible, or specific behavior otherwise. >> >> Or, more flexible property declaration: >> >> *something: foo; >> >> Try standard behavior first, or use specific if it possible. > > This has been discussed before. It suffers from the fact that, when > browsers differ from the standard in their experimental > implementations, they quite commonly differ in slightly incompatible > ways. Folding them into a single property so that you can't target > each browser with different code means that the prefix is somewhat > unusable. I don't think he's suggesting that the specific-prefixes would stop working, just that there might usefully be an easy way to write "I want the frotz behavior, and it's fine by me if it's standard frotz, -webkit-frotz, -o-frotz, -super-frotz, -barely-frotz, -ms-frotz, or even -totallynew-frotz". > > As has been discussed before, prefix hell serves a very valuable > purpose. When all four browsers are prefixing a property, though, > that's a strong indication that that particular feature should be > fast-tracked to unprefixed. > > ~TJ > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 17:15:00 UTC