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

Re: Vendor Prefix solutions

From: Witold Baryluk <baryluk@smp.if.uj.edu.pl>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:05:02 +0100
To: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
Cc: Ernie Bello <ernie@ern.me>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120210130502.GB9347@smp.if.uj.edu.pl>
On 02-10 08:19, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I agree with all of you that vendor-prefix from our perspective is
> fine and there's no *technical* problem.
> 
> However the world isn't made of responsible web developers, those are
> rare. So the feature is being abused - to the point where vendors are
> about to implement -webkit- support in all browsers. That's the point
> they feel pushed to. If that happens, standards fail.
> 
> So the problem is "how do we stop the abuse"?

I have a rather radical idea.

How about introducing into prefixes their expiration?


-webkit-2010-2012-box-shadow

Which means it is valid from 2010 to 2012, and maybe few months more,
but not anymore. If for some important reasons in this time
standarization process doesn't finished, a w3C will vote for prolonging
this expiration up to next 5 years.

Any vendor could introduce their own ranges, but no longer than 2 years.
This will make pressure on all parties: developers wanting to use this
features (they will clearly see expiration date), W3C, and other
standarization parties to do something, and vendors to work harder on
standarization. If for some reason standarization fails, a W3C needs to
admit that and prolonge a prefix for few more years.

I know it still hard to enforce on vendors, but may be possible.

There could be for example a separate clause for internal devices, like
e-book readers, or intrantes, which could use own prefixes indefinitly
(or with older versions of User Agents).

Regards,
Witek

-- 
Witold Baryluk
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 13:05:31 GMT

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