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

Re: Vendor Prefix solutions

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:00:45 -0800
Message-ID: <4F34420D.8040001@jumis.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Yes, with CSS transforms its worth it. It's worth it for the appearance 
property, too. In my work, anyway.
They've been very helpful in my apps.

I haven't found vendor prefixes to be abused, I'm just disgruntled with 
the need to write the same thing out so many times.
transform is really the only sore thumb I've got. It's not a big deal, 
but it'd be nice to avoid something similar in the future.

We'll probably go through something like it with element().


On 2/9/2012 1:58 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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 22:01:09 UTC

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