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

Re: vendor prefixes: co-cascading

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:05:09 -0800
Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <A795E342-34C3-4BDB-9937-077913B27680@apple.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>

On Nov 17, 2011, at 15:55 , Brad Kemper wrote:

> On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:22 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 15:04 , Brian Manthos wrote:
>> 
>>> And doing that with CSS specs, and then multiplying *that* by the vendor-product-version-matrix-size is better?
>> 
>> I am suggesting that rather than seeing
>> -mozilla-this
>> -webkit-this
>> -etc.-this
>> 
>> 
>> all over our specs, it might be better to see
>> -draft1-this
>> -draft2-this
>> 
>> where the 'this' feature has changed.
> 
> I think changing the number would only be beneficial when syntax stays the same but the meaning changes. If the syntax changes, then authors could just include the old and the new with the same prefix, and wouldn't need to include -draft1-this through -draft50-this. 

well, if the name stays the same but the syntax changes, I'd need to write it differently, wouldn't I (and hence possibly twice)?

-draft1-this: 1cubit
-draft2-this: proportion-of( furlong, 20%)

and if the semantics changes, likewise; if the length changes from being how far you want the grenade thrown, to how far you need to back off to be safe, then that's a big change, and the author would express the length differently and might need -draft4-this and draft5-this.


> 
> 
>> 
>> This would be painful for the spec. writers (every tag would need to say what its current 'experimental' prefix is, and that would change if the feature changed), but it's easy for
>> a) implementers: recognize the tag(s) that you saw in the spec(s) you implement
>> b) authors: write the tag in the specification you worked from
>> 
>> The current mess is easy for the spec. writers but hard for implementers and users, which (IMHO) may not be the right optimization.
>> 
>>> 
>>> -Brian
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 2:15 PM
>>> To: Brian Manthos
>>> Cc: Alex Mogilevsky; www-style@w3.org list
>>> Subject: Re: vendor prefixes: co-cascading
>>> 
>>> I guess they could, of course; they don't, maybe because if we multiply N vendors by M versions we end up with O which is oh-much-too-large.
>>> 
>>> whereas multiplying M by 1 is more palatable.
>>> 
>>> just guessing...
>>> 
>>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:45 , Brian Manthos wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> At the moment, vendors can't easily version, and nor can we, and when vendors all do the same
>>>> 
>>>> Why can't they?
>>>> 
>>>> Why is "-mozilla27-simple" not viable if "-draft27-simple" is?
>>> 
>>> David Singer
>>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> David Singer
>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> 
>> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 00:05:37 GMT

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