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

Re: Proposition to change the prefixing policy

From: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 11:33:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEoffTAQtC7Zaq-0Bs8=vEGmrLKAO1f58-CW35becrVpvbs1TQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/12 11:02 AM, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
>>On 5/4/12 1:26 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>>> In the cases where implementations and real world usage are ahead of the
>>> spec, then yes, it would limit the ability of the WG to make
>>>incompatible
>>> changes. But this isn't necessarily bad.
>>
>>It can be quite bad.
>>
>>Several WG members have indicated on numerous occasions that as a matter
>>of company policy they are unable to propose something for
>>standardization until they have shipped a (prefixed, at the moment)
>>implementation of it.  What this means with your proposal is that any
>>ideas they have, no matter how half-baked, would have to be dumped out
>>on the web without a prefix before they could even start to bring them
>>to the working group.
>
> I do not think this would necessarily be the case. Experiments and
> browser-specific features could still be added with a vendor prefix only.
> We could mandate that the unprefixed version (aliased to the prefixed
> version) could only come after the appropriate standards body had a
> proposal in hand and agreed to work on it.
>

Isn't this essentially what the current process is supposed to be?

-- Dirk
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 19:01:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:53 GMT