W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Pseudo-element proposal

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:22:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAxUr6uEr6NLgVXT1noHe=OPtdHy8gNSZUKAcmP4zTugA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Chris Coyier <chriscoyier@gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
> I love that this is available in JS, a few of us have been proposing
> that this is an excellent way to get things rolling, etc...
>
> However, even in another thread today we were discussing prefixing,
> forward compatibility, etc. and I feel like suggesting that this would
> be even better if it did not try to literally polyfill something in
> the native space which may or may not be implemented in the future
> with similar/partial APIs or differences.  Does anyone else think that
> it might be better to prefix the experimental pseudos?  In other
> words, instead of:
>
> ::nth-last-pseudo(column, odd)
>
> It would be something like...
>
> ::-x-nth-last-pseudo(column, odd)
>
> I suppose see related threads for all of the rationale, but this
> creates a nice author opt-in model which is clearly emulated at this
> early phase -- shouldn't break when native are available even if there
> are differences, etc...

I don't understand what you are trying to get at here.  Experimental
things are vendor-prefixed as long as they're experiments.  We don't
give them a different *name* while they're experiments.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 19:23:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:58 GMT