W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Possible Vendor Prefix Solution

From: Stu Cox <stuart.cox@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:16:17 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJ-2Ov7tpwtp7RDw+PZHDa771SXzaPggvMBCA-DJ+iAfbdcMkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Tom Wardrop <tom@tomwardrop.com>, www-style@w3.org
Of course the web *is* full of unprefixed uses of the properties, because
developers frequently add the unprefixed variant to their style rules while
the spec is still in draft.

The problem is two-fold, and we'd do well to treat these separately:

* Varying browser support (implementations of different revisions of the
specs, etc)
* Buggy implementations


Stu Cox


On 4 March 2013 16:49, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

> On Monday 2013-03-04 20:56 +1000, Tom Wardrop wrote:
> > The solution I propose is to keep vendor prefixes as they are, but to
> > encourage browser vendors to implement draft properties using the
> standard
> > property name as well. To use Firefox as my example browser, Firefox
> should
> > support both -moz-box-sizing and box-sizing. One should simply be an
> alias
> > of the other.
>
> This doesn't solve the problem that vendor prefixes were originally
> designed to solve, which is that the draft status of the properties
> is such that the group is not yet ready to commit to being backwards
> compatible with content using those properties.  If the Web were
> full of unprefixed uses of the properties, implementations would
> have to maintain compatibility with the syntax and behavior.
>
> -David
>
> --
> 𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
> 𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 12:17:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:06 GMT