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

Re: wading into the Prefix morass...

From: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:53:33 +1100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <20120223035333.GA13066@bowman.infotech.monash.edu.au>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:51 GMT