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

Re: Unprefixing CSS properties

From: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:10:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMFeDTX9JcTpo+DtDNUBnTezMC6z7UAxZGwrrawaOJ90MFf59g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
It may be years late, but the problem is now. The number of people to
convince is very small.

Part of the problem is that the discussions about vendor prefixing until
now have not all been public, so it has not been obvious what the "correct"
practice is.

Let's put together a clear document about vendor prefixing and get it out
there. I would bet that the Modernizrs of the world would heed explicit
guidance quickly and easily.

Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325


On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 11/19/11 2:30 PM, Brian Manthos wrote:
>
>> Authors are taught to set the same values they're using for prefixed
>>> properties for the
>>> unprefixed version as well, to "future proof" their production sites.
>>> Such usage
>>> constrains browser implementers, and by extension the WG, to make sure
>>> the spec
>>> evolves in a way that doesn't break those sites.
>>>
>>
>> This is incorrect guidance and should be corrected.
>>
>
> You mean "should have been"?  It's literally years late for that...
>
> But feel free to convince the people offering this guidance that they're
> wrong.  I've tried, in the past, and failed.
>
> -Boris
>
>
Received on Saturday, 19 November 2011 05:11:28 GMT

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