W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2011

RE: Unprefixing CSS properties

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:45:04 +0000
To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D170447FC2D@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
The difference here is that in your example that's a CSS3 browser vs. a CSS4 browser.

The scenario in my example is CSS3 browser A vs. CSS3 browser B.  That's a huge difference.  At least IMO.

-Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Øyvind Stenhaug [mailto:oyvinds@opera.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 4:20 AM
> To: Brian Manthos
> Cc: www-style
> Subject: Re: Unprefixing CSS properties
> 
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:49:08 +0100, Brian Manthos
> <brianman@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >>> expanded grammar
> >> Those are totally OK since the changes are backwards compatible.
> > Incorrect.  While authoring conventions can make it effectively
> > backwards compatible, it’s not strictly backwards compatible.
> >
> > Example:
> > div {
> >                 transition-timing-function: ease-in;
> >                 transition-timing-function: step-start;
> > }
> >
> > Browser A unprefixes against the current WD.  Browser A applies
> > “ease-in”.
> >
> > Browser B unprefixes against the current ED.  Browser B applies
> > “step-start”.
> >
> > Interoperability failure.
> 
> That's not really much different than e.g.
> 
> div {
> 	background: white;
> 	background: url(foo.png), lightblue;
> }
> 
> Browser A implements the current level 2 syntax; applies "white".
> 
> Browser B implements the current level 3 syntax; applies "url(foo.png),
> lightblue".
> 
> --
> Øyvind Stenhaug
> Core Norway, Opera Software ASA

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 16:45:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT