On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com> wrote: > >> Actually, I don't think so. My approach makes sure that the good promises >> of vendor prefixes are kept – if a feature breaks in a newer browser >> because of syntax changes, for instance, and the removal of the vendor >> prefix has simply been done through the proxy, it's crazy easy to simply >> fix it in the client side css, at a single line in your code. >> > > If authors were diligent about updating their CSS whenever browser > releases happen, most of our problems would go away. But that doesn't > happen, and it's not fair to expect them to. > The other problem is that authors would use your feature (and similar features) to include the unprefixed version of the property, as "fallback" in case the prefixed versions go away, or for currently-unknown browsers. Which is fine, but it destroys the point of using prefixes in the first place. 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 Thursday, 9 February 2012 21:48:44 UTC