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

RE: Proposition to change the prefixing policy

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 14:13:18 +0000
To: "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
CC: Rik Schaaf <coolcat_the_best@hotmail.com>, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290A348F2D@TK5EX14MBXC261.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Liam R E Quin:]
> 
> On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 19:12 -0700, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> > Since we're throwing proposals out there...
> >
> > I'd rather we do the same as http headers. Any experimental feature
> > gets an x-prefix instead of a vendor prefix.
> 
> How does that work if two different browsers have different value-spaces
> for the same property? This seems entirely likely - e.g. they implement
> different drafts, or invent something independently.
> 
If the values are mutually incompatible you'd just repeat the property as 
you do today. The hard case being when the value spaces overlap substantially
and/or some values come to mean different things over time. But if the draft 
does that then you can already have this problem today i.e. -moz-foo:bar and 
-ms-foo:bar would yield different results in such a case as well. There may 
or may not be a valid fallback for a particular UA; if there is one, the prefix 
does make it easy to target a specific engine at the stylesheet level. But 
sniffing the engine is pretty much all you have left at this point. The question 
though is: how often would this kind of issue have happened in the past had we 
followed the model proposed by Florian above? (which, afaik, was first mooted 
by Aryeh Gregor on this list some time ago)
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2012 14:13:55 GMT

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