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

RE: Proposal to enable -css- prefix on transform and appearance

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:07:44 +0000
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290342F56F@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Charles Pritchard:]
> On 2/23/2012 8:38 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Charles Pritchard<chuck@jumis.com>
> wrote:
> >> If at all possible, it'd be great to see Mozilla, Opera, Microsoft
> >> and Gapple pick up  -css- as a cross-vendor prefix:
> >>
> >> I'd like to see -css- supported in the next beta releases:
> >>
> >> The -css-transform family.
> >> -css-appearance: none (and I think auto, or inherit, or whatever it is).
> >>
> >> It requires only minimal effort on the vendor developers, it's a
> "vendor"
> >> prefix, so there are no rules, and we've got good consensus that
> appearance:
> >> none is here to stay, and transform will happen eventually.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your consideration,
> > What's the benefit of this?
> There's a growing collection of names that are shared across
> implementations but are not ready to be unprefixed.
> Starting with two very common features is an easy entry into a cross-
> vendor prefix.
> Authors can still stack a vendor prefix after the common prefix if things
> aren't working out.
> Such as:
> -css-appearance: none;
> -webkit-appearance: none;
> Authors are already messing around with prefix land anyway:
> http://leaverou.github.com/prefixfree/

> This is a middle ground, proposed by David Singer, between rushing out
> recommendations and waiting years.
> As an author, I think this would be helpful. And I would prefer -css- over
> -draft-.
Just saying 'I'd like X to happen in the next beta releases' is not that 
helpful for any topic on this list. The why and how is what matters.

This specific proposal has been discussed several times on the list - every 
time there is a vendor prefix discussion, really - and no consensus in its 
favor ever emerged. I'm not opposed to the issue being reopened as long as 
new facts and/or arguments are offered. 

Note: I do appreciate that searching the current archive is difficult. That is
a separate problem.

Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 21:08:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:56 UTC