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

RE: prefixed values(RE: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Paris F2F Monday Morning 2012-02-06: Administrivia, Vendor Prefixes, Property/Value Alias OM)

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:50:46 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D170EC54C56@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
If you really think there's that clear a separation, then I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

Prediction: This will be pain in less than 5 years of when that rule gets enforced, for all parties affected.

-Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:32 AM
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: prefixed values(RE: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Paris
> F2F Monday Morning 2012-02-06: Administrivia, Vendor Prefixes,
> Property/Value Alias OM)
> 
> On 02/08/2012 02:41 PM, Brian Manthos wrote:
> > Given the current design of CSS holistically, and backgrounds
> specifically, properties interact.  Property and value treatments w/r/t
> prefixes need to be consistent, or at least compatible.
> >
> > I've only skimmed the notes so far, but there's also the issue of
> "equivalent values" in "all variants" is not always constructible (much
> less necessarily desirable) given that grammars change as the spec
> evolves (read: features come and go).  So in many cases this
> requirement isn't even theoretically possible, much less practical.
> 
> Note also the resolution was listed for official CSS aliasing, not
> for vendor prefixing, and thus your concerns don't really apply.
> 
> ~fantasai
> 
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 17:51:35 GMT

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