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 15:23:38 -0800
Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <61ED0414-9CB8-4CF2-9BAE-B78C17AD0B76@apple.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>

On Feb 20, 2012, at 15:07 , Brad Kemper wrote:

> On Feb 20, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
>>> This is what led to me wondering (a few emails ago) if we could
>>> usefully use draft-specific prefixes for features, and only change
>>> the prefix if the parsing had to change.
>> 
>> On one specific point, just an observation...
>> 
>> Parsing changes aren't the only spec change that introduces incompatibility.
>> 
>> Draft A:  0 deg points right
>> -draft-linear-gradient(10deg, red, blue);
>> 
>> Draft B:  0 deg points up
>> -draft-linear-gradient(10deg, red, blue);
>> 
>> 
>> I can give you specifics on which draft versions if it's actually useful for you.
> 
> Exactly. There were also times when the same blur radius produced very, very different results between -webkit-box-shadow and -moz-box-shadow. As an author, I was able to make the results more consistent by giving different values to each. Then by the time they were unprefixed in CR, we had decided on a more consistent way to determine the results of blur.

No dispute from me; I was recollecting, probably imperfectly, the previous time I phrased it, which I recall was taken as too broad;  this time, I seem to have strayed towards the too narrow.  Ah well.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 23:24:13 GMT

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