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: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:47:06 +0000
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290342F960@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Charles Pritchard:]
> 
> On 2/23/2012 1:07 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> > [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).
> >>>>
> >>> 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.
> ...
> >> 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
> 
> David's proposal was the best compromise I've seen in the entire
> discussion. It's new, it popped up recently, and I didn't see anything in
> the way of objections.

I can't tell what's new about it. Having one prefix such as -w3c- or draft
has been discussed a few times [1].

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Mar/0317.html


> Tab worried out-loud that it might harm vendor prefixes. I replied that,
> if a vendor prefix is used subsequently in the style sheet, things would
> work out fine.
> 
> I take it from your response, that you're voting "no" on this solution.
> So it goes.

What I vote is not the issue. Re-debating the same things over and over
is tiresome. Though, again, I do appreciate that it's hard to look for
previous instances.

> I'll hope in private that the -webkit- and -moz- might find some agreement
> in time. They each have a lot of overlapping names.
> 
We all have a lot of overlapping names. That's the whole point of the current
scheme...

Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 04:47:39 GMT

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