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

Re: [css3-*] Review of functional syntax in CSS

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:17:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDs4xBNLAcyD3FzDDJrgdnae=Vi5DFOv4U2LHFoSXgS=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 4:01 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 4. Backwards compat should be preserved unless there's a very good
>> reason otherwise
>
> Are the proposed comma removals backwards-compatible in the sense that
> prefixed properties would work with extra commas if unprefixed? (It
> seems to me that wouldn't be the case.) Without that kind of
> compatibility with what's deployed, I expected it to be very confusing
> to authors if dropping prefixes needs to be couples with dropping
> well-selected commas, too.

Undecided.  Preferably, no, as it would keep the language cleaner.
But there's a decent chance we'd have to allow it to ease transition
pain, at least on the transform functions and cubic-bezier().

~TJ
Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 17:18:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:48 GMT