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

Re: Unprefixing CSS properties

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:42:46 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLaB6eKc0dMTRA87_TO_-t5oPOXAqJPkTgdYAfxKtTOFqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Cc: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>wrote:

> > "CSS3 browser" and "CSS4 browser" are meaningless terms.
> No, they are not.  If that were the case, there is no point in having
> “Level 4” vs. “Level 3” modules.
>

Is a browser that implements some but not all of CSS 2.1, some but not all
CSS3 modules, and some but not all CSS4 modules, a "CSS3 browser" or a
"CSS4 browser"?

No, I’m not saying that.  I’m saying that having multiple incompatible
> un-prefixed implementations of Level N of CSS for a given property is bad,
> in multiple ways.
>

Do you think it's bad if a browser ships support for some of the new values
defined in CSS3 Images, and not others?

Do you think it's bad for a browser to ship unprefixed support for some,
but not all, of the calc() property (for example)?

In practice, what is the difference between "some browsers implement only
the image values defined in CSS 2.1, but other browsers support the all
CSS3 image values" vs "some browsers implement only the image values in CSS
2.1, but other browsers support a subset of the CSS3 image values"?

My interpretation of the latest flavor (in this thread) is "can we just
> violate the rules because we think these properties are really super cool
> and stuff?"
>

That is not the correct interpretation. I also think gradients are super
cool but the spec is still not stable enough for me to recommend
unprefixing.

Options:
> (A) Work to get the modules containing them to CR
> (B) Propose a change to the W3C as a whole, or CSSWG as a part, that
> defines when it is ok to un-prefix outside of CR holistically, not just for
> the ones you've cherry-picked
> (C) Lobby to get your cherry-picked properties to be treated as *special*
>
> I'm arguing against (C).  (A) and (B) are fine; go nuts.
>

To make option A happen quickly, in many cases we need to replace current
spec editors with other editors who will can guarantee rapid progress.
Unfortunately we don't have a supply of such editors.

This thread implements option B.

Rob
-- 
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not
in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us
our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not
sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us." [1 John
1:8-10]
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 20:43:18 GMT

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