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

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

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:39:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+eBQOYgu657j=e-P3Yy2nH2OCnxFbhdH_H3WY=82jV__A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> > It was my suggestion for a vendor-neutral pre-release prefix "from by
> the CSS WG".  I have no strong feelings about whether -css, -draft, or
> something else is the best.
>
> We don't actually want that, as explained in other threads.  Having a
> single shared prefix hurts our ability to experiment and for authors
> to work around interop problems.
>

I agree with David on this suggestion. It is better to have a vendor
neutral, csswg blessed prefix than having different vendors start copying
each others vendor specific prefix.

I can see a progression as follows:

(1) phase 1 - preliminary / experimental (pre-ED/ED/WDs prior to LC)

vendors use vendor specific prefixes

(2) phase 2 - pre-standard (LC)

vendors use vendor neutral, blessed prefix, but can still support vendor
specific flavors of same

(3) phase 3 - near-standard (CR/PR)

vendors *may* use unprefixed, in which case they *should* begin sunsetting
prefixed flavor support

(4) phase 4 - standard (REC)

vendors *must* use unprefixed, and *should* have completed sunsetting
prefixed flavors
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 21:40:46 GMT

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