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

Re: Vendor Prefixes and Generic Prefixes: who shall use which when and why?

From: Mark Ayers <markthema3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:41:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMKWQ2W--FaepJUoNC0YQFbPSFXhfsPhi04EpEifAD4fLLfcsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
I really like the -wd- -ed- etc etc etc prefixes, this *should* help MS
keep their bug compatibility while allowing them to progress with the newer
implementations. It would also help with multiple repetitions of the same
thing with different prefixes, though I suppose it could potentially make
that problem worse.

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/12 8:58 AM, Christoph Päper wrote:
>>
>>>  dbaron: The more we can unprefix, perhaps the less we have this problem.
>>>>  tantek: One possible proposal is to only parse other vendors' prefixes
>>>> in
>>>>          conjunction with parsing unprefixed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That’s a minimum requirement. Anything less should not even be
>>> considered for discussion.
>>>
>>
>> The only way to do that is to change the unprefixing policy of this
>> working group and unprefix a whole bunch of things right now.
>>
>
> i'm not sure if IPR issues have yet been discussed in this context, but i
> believe we can't simply standardize currently prefixed properties without
> first introducing them into scope of the WG according to W3C IPR practices
>
> of course, if the prefixed version matches (without modification)
> preliminary specifications already developed within WG scope, then this
> would not be a barrier
>
> please correct me if i have the wrong impression
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:46:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT