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

Re: wading into the Prefix morass...

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:18:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+eX1qx5YEfkMNj-tYtf-qSSyFO514FbxORSBFOELUMZNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com> wrote:

> On 22/02/2012 2:40 AM, David Singer wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 5:40 , Alan Gresley wrote:
>>
>>  On 21/02/2012 7:06 AM, David Singer wrote:
>>>
>>>  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. When using Safari 5, iPhone 4 (which I don't have), Chrome 17 or
>>> even Firefox 10, I should *not see* a box-shadow in the below test.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, I don't understand what point you are trying to make.  Can you
>> explain?
>>
>> thx
>>
>
> Once a browser supports a property that is un-prefixed (like box-shadow or
> border-radius), it should drop support for it’s prefixed counterpart.


I can see good reason for maintaining the prefixed version for some
definite period of time, such as backward compatibility for existing usage,
which may vary between a specific vendor prefixed version, which may
maintain prior vendor semantics, and an unprefixed version, which may move
away from prior implemented semantics.
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 16:19:22 GMT

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