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

Re: Vendor-prefixes: an idea

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 02:34:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDC=69YuRGbxtt9cDN0t9Ez+p+Nrn8SFi_jQK0Y5B-PLCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, CSS 3 W3C Group <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 2012, at 7:54 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The only failure-mode is if some of
>> the old syntax overlaps the new syntax, but has a different meaning
>> (like what linear-gradients did with <angle>s).  The simple solution
>> is "don't do that".  If you absolutely *must* do that, just change the
>> property name.
>
> At the time, I begged that we just don't do that, without also changing the syntax enough so that the previous version could still be there in a style sheet and ignored in newer UAs. I was told that the rest of WG would not give any sort of consideration of what happened with experimental prefixed values when determining how the value should work in a later draft.

Call it a rookie mistake on my part.  (Because it was a mistake.)

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 00:35:07 GMT

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