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

Vendor Prefix solutions

From: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:48:36 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMCRKiKkdfoOaWWzt-CPDBKzQqJhasXgJkxUgq+Mhk+KtWJ0Sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
Vendor prefixes are great. There's nothing wrong with them. The fault
at the moment is developers that don't use them right.

What can we do about it?

Well, the main problem from our standpoint is that the test mechanism
makes it easy to abuse. What about ditching any new vendor prefixes
and going with something like
http://felipe.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/a-proposal-to-drop-browser-vendor-prefixes/

@-vendor-unlock {
  box-shadow, transition, transform
}

That makes it harder to abuse but has it's own issues (incompatible
syntax for experimental implementations).

But, the main problem really is that vendors are shipping support for
experimental features in production, public targeted, browsers. Can we
not suggest vendors come to a mutual agreement to lock prefixes to
development builds, and remove them from public shipping builds? This
stops the uneducated developer being able to mis-use experimental
features, whilst allowing knowledgable developers to experiment in
safety. It also forces a progressive-enhancement mentality. And stops
browser vendor competition 'point scoring' which is causing long-term
harm.
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 21:49:04 GMT

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