- From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 12:00:02 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Sat, 05 May 2012 04:12:02 +0200, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > I'd rather we do the same as http headers. Any experimental feature gets > an > x-prefix instead of a vendor prefix. > [...] > > There's no perfect solution to this problem. But the downsides of > x-prefixing are much milder than the downsides of vendor-prefixing IMO. The IETF, which is the standard body that has used X- prefixes for http headers, mail headers, and various other things, is considering moving away from them: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-05 Essntially, having a single prefix shared by everybody is no different from having no prefixes at all, except for the fact that you end up using the x- prefixed name forever, as the migration to the unprefixed name never happens. Once you have interpolatable implementations, a spec that describes the interoperable behavior accurately, and a large body of content using the name has been implemented, what benefit is there to any one to try and migrate everybody over to the exact same thing named differently? - Florian
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 10:00:33 UTC