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

Re: Vendor Prefix solutions

From: Anselm Hannemann <anselm@novolo.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 23:04:34 +0100
Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <A1B2C09E-1751-4D37-8114-9358A4027671@novolo.de>
To: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
You only should use vendor prefixes if you know what you do.
If you don't know and some experience is broken, it's the developers fault, not the vendors'.

I don't think prefixes shouldn't be in dev-versions. This would also conflict with the versions a standard couldn't be passed within 2-3months.
I think developers should be more careful again with vendor prefixes and this is something people who are giving presentations, 
who are teaching such stuff, should talk about.
But this never legitimate to adopt another prefix from another browser. This is the wrong way!
And I think it's clear enough what all developers think of this issue and that this is no solution.


Am 09.02.2012 um 22:58 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:

> 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 22:05:00 UTC

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