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

Re: vendor prefixes: co-cascading

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:03:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAGRTe2rG0sEKPUkP3h_AjdhYjkGD_1+yVbJxj5a7Q0zQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I have an idea for vendor prefixes. I don’t know if this is new or really
> old (so much is written about it…), let me just give it a try. I’ll try to
> make it short.
>
>
>
> 1.       Browsers should support *both* prefixed and unprefixed versions of
> new properties.
>
> 2.       It is OK to support unprefixed properties as soon as there is at
> least a reasonably detailed spec. First WD should be fine.
>
> 3.       Prefixed and unprefixed versions of same property cascade together:
> when both are specified, the last one (or most specific one) wins, as if it
> was same property.
>
> 4.       Vendors make their own decisions on when and how to change, retain
> or abandon their proprietary properties. Timeframes and criteria for these
> changes should not be much different from current practice.
>
> 5.       Vendors are expected to regularly update the syntax and behavior of
> unprefixed properties. These can be considered “W3C experimental” until spec
> is very stable.
>
> 6.       Authors have a choice to favor prefixed or unprefixed properties,
> based on spec and implementation status and purpose of the content.

We already co-cascade, except that the unprefixed version always wins.
 What benefit does this change bring?  If you want to support
down-level clients who don't yet understand the unprefixed version,
that happens automatically if you just use both the prefixed and
unprefixed property.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 16:04:57 GMT

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