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

Re: Unprefixing CSS properties

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:05:44 +1300
Message-ID: <4EC80C18.6090109@mit.edu>
To: Jon Rimmer <jon.rimmer@gmail.com>
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>
On 11/20/11 5:29 AM, Jon Rimmer wrote:
> On 19 November 2011 01:30, Brian Manthos<brianman@microsoft.com>  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.
>
> What? If I only include the prefixed property, and the syntax changes,
> my site breaks. If I also include an unprefixed version, and the
> syntax changes, my site still breaks, so what difference does it make?

The issue is not syntax changing; it's behavior changing without syntax 
changing.

> (Or rather, it doesn't "break", it simply reverts to the fallback
> behaviour that I will provide for older browsers that never supported
> these new features.)

For behavior changes without syntax changes, this will be quite 
different depending on whether you include the unprefixed version.

Furthermore, if you don't list an unprefixed version you might actually 
think about this fallback behavior business.  Right now a lot of authors 
don't.

> Don't keep
> trying to solve unsolvable problems or save authors from ourselves.

I'll settle for saving users from authors.  ;)

-Boris
Received on Monday, 21 November 2011 02:07:21 GMT

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