- From: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:48:05 +0200
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
On 20/2/12 21:39, David Singer wrote: > I do this with all appropriate humility, and aware that I may be inviting flame-throwers pointed my way… > > > I do wonder whether it would help us, and the web community, if we differentiated more clearly between > > A) experimental features that vendors introduce, that are truly vendor-specific > and > B) 'early' (before spec. stability) implementations of specifications that are in process at the W3C. > > It doesn't seem to help the web community much to ask them to write N similar 'vendor-specific' constructs for case (b), when, in fact, they are all (trying to) implement the same specification. > > 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. I agree, it makes life harder for the spec. author (you have to think: do I need to change the 'draft prefix' as a result of this edit?) but it makes life way easier for the web developer. And it removes the ugly temptation to implement another vendor's prefix; you don't, you implement the 'draft' prefix. > > 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 Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. Relevant: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/0507.html -- Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 23:48:36 UTC