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

Re: Unprefixing CSS properties

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:29:35 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLaHXG4iTt6gUKmcrPs+noe+TSru++SdT+dArM28LGyhJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:

> For example, once box-shadow:<length> <length> <length> <length> was
> deployed prefixed in browsers, and authors had started "future proofing"
> their sites by specifying it unprefixed as well, I don't think the WG could
> have changed the spec to make that syntax mean something significantly
> different.
>

The WG could have thrown away that syntax and replaced it with alternative
syntax that parsed incompatibly, possibly even using a different property
name. That would not have immediately broken sites using the old syntax.
Instead it would have created a latent compatibility problem: when browsers
drop support for their prefixed version, these old pages will no longer
work. The "future-proofing" the author intended will have failed. Browser
vendors might have to respond by never dropping prefixed support.

Again, prefixes wouldn't have helped in this situation. The exact same
sequence of events could play out if browsers had shipped the property
unprefixed from the start.

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 Friday, 18 November 2011 22:30:04 GMT

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