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

Re: [css3-page] (Un)prefixing

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:31:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4FF34875.2080102@inkedblade.net>
To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 07/03/2012 08:25 AM, Simon Sapin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> css3-page in still in WD, so according to these it should be prefixed:
>
> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/vendor-prefixes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/css-2010/#experimental
>
> But what is there to prefix?
>
> @page {} was already in CSS 2.1 and should not be prefixed.
>
> I guess margin rules like @top-left {} should be prefixed, but no implementation that I know of does so. Are we (implementers)
> wrong on this one?

No, the reasons are historical: CSS3 Paged Media was in CR in the past.
   http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-page-20040225/
It was pulled back into WD because the draft needed a *lot* of work;
most features were vastly underspecified. However, there were no plans
to dramatically change the features, just to specify more precisely how
they worked. Due to the past CR, there is no need to prefix these features.

> More generally, some emails in this list hinted that none of the published documents are quite up-to-date regarding the
> current WG consensus about prefixing. As a non-member implementer Iím a bit in the dark here.

Hm, yes, I need to update the snapshot to say that CSS3 Paged Media
is an unprefixed stage. Should also say that for text-shadow, since
people seem to be confused on that point. (It was in CSS2.0.)

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 19:31:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:56 GMT