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 16:54:02 +0000
To: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
CC: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D170447FC6B@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> Authors are asking for technology that is on track for standardization and
> is widely supported in multiple major browsers. Authors are intentionally
> choosing the path that allows them to create web sites and applications
> that are performant and capable on mobile devices, using the tools that
> are widely available on many of those platforms; saying they are choosing
> a bad path without providing an alternative (other than "build a native app"
> or "accept bad performance") is not really fair.

The alternative is to use prefixed properties.  Nothing in this thread has suggested removing those.  If you want to use something that's not baked yet, feel free to use it prefixed - but don't expected the unprefixed to behave the same.  It's like asking for the storyboard of a movie scene to look the same as the final produced reel.

The phrase "on track for standardization" doesn't mean much IMO.  The first ED that contains a property puts it "on track for standardization"; that says very little about what that property will continue to support, and in what form, when the associated module reaches CR.

> Except that they are ready for production content, and were released in
> virtually identical form on several-generations-old mobile platforms.
> These are the APIs we, as authors, are provided by platform and browser
> vendors. If the iOS or Android APIs are "ready for production content",
> saying that widely deployed web APIs are not ready is making the web
> less competitive on these platforms.

To me "virtually identical" means "incompatible in ways that will torment generations of authors".


Overall, my impression of what you're saying is "the standardization process is taking too long".  Moving from that to (my words) "make standardization really quick and not actually mean anything" is a step in the wrong direction.  And means the output of "standardization" has no value vs. not having that step at all.
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 16:54:35 GMT

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