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

Re: wading into the Prefix morass...

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:06:02 -0800
Message-id: <C2A93AA9-4E6B-4927-AD4F-805C7A82F9EF@apple.com>
To: "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>

On Feb 20, 2012, at 11:53 , Daniel Glazman wrote:

> Le 20/02/12 20:39, David Singer a écrit :
>> so, instead of -webkit-frotz, we might see -css-a-frotz, -css-b-frotz, and so on (as the definition of frotz evolves), with some final definition being -frotz and equivalent to -css-r-frotz (well, I hope we don't have 'r' revisions of anything).
>> I use -css- to suggest "the definition currently 'belongs' to the CSS WG", and the lack of it to say "it's now owned by the whole wonderful world and its web"…
> David,
> This was indeed suggested multiple times in the past. But since you're
> the Apple AC-Rep, maybe you can answer that easy question: if we do
> that, will Apple remove such early prefixes from WebKit even if they
> are shipped and used in the wild? Without a VERY firm "yes", I will
> increase the problem only, not decrease it…

I think if a vendor introduces an idea, that then transitions into a CSS WG item, they ought to recognizer their vendor prefix while it's theirs, and the CSS prefix once it goes to the W3C.  I don't think they should be required to then drop *support* for the vendor prefix, but of course, I agree, it would be most helpful if they then *evangelized* the CSS prefix and 'ceased to mention' their old vendor prefixed version.  Is that what you are asking?

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 20:06:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:56 UTC