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

Re: Vendor Prefix solutions

From: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:58:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMCRKi+aCz=e0OUEtjnHHHMhrw44W3aqa=UfwjjwLxdyqhcdiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
We can all point to something like that. Is the price we're paying
worth it? We all want the shiny new things as soon as possible, but
not if they're not ready. That's what -vendor-prefixes do, and they
are abused.

On 9 February 2012 21:51, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/2012 1:48 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> 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
> If we did that, we still wouldn't have CSS Transforms. CSS Transforms are
> still broken, but I am really glad to have them. I'd rather have workarounds
> than not have transforms at all.
> -Charles
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 21:58:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:55 UTC