- From: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:53:33 +1100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:36:52AM -0800, David Singer wrote: > All the existing uses of that feature (which is all we're discussing) then > break, until the authors do an update. "All the existing uses ... break" is too strong. It's understood that prefixed features won't work in all UAs, and many pages using the feature will even have been tested in such UAs (which might include previous versions of UAs that do support the prefixed feature). Many other pages would render perfectly acceptably even where they hadn't been tested in other UAs. "Break" can be understood in many ways; let us be clear, and say that they will render without box shadows (or whatever the feature), where the author preferred the page to render with that feature. That it is preferable to render with the feature, rather than that all pages would be broken without the feature. > Not acceptable. Similarly, this sounds a bit too strong, given that authors understand that not all UAs implement prefixed features, and might be said to have accepted this when using prefixed features. > Its evolution will be fine, if we manage the transition from vendor prefix, > to shared prefix, to unprefixed, correctly. It won't be if we dump pages > that used to work, abruptly. (I'm not arguing against the conclusion, btw., just making sure that we understand the arguments for it while things are still being discussed and evaluated.) pjrm.
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 03:54:15 UTC