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

Re: Possible Vendor Prefix Solution

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:56:24 -0800
To: Tom Wardrop <tom@tomwardrop.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20130307005624.GA3629@crum.dbaron.org>
On Thursday 2013-03-07 10:43 +1000, Tom Wardrop wrote:
> > If the Web were full of unprefixed uses of the properties,
> implementations would have to maintain compatibility with the syntax and
> behavior.
> I don't see how this is any different to the current situation. Vendor
> prefixed properties are used on many production websites. Any change to
> those properties has the potential to break those websites. My suggestion
> does not introduce any new problems, nor does it come with any side-effects
> that vendor-prefixes (or draft properties in general) don't already possess.

Not shipping experimental properties until they're ready (rather
than shipping them with prefixes), which is largely the solution
that we're moving towards, does solve this problem.

> Given that, can anyone provide a reason not to adopt my proposal?

This statement seems pretty close to demanding that your proposal be
adopted unless we take the time to argue with you.  I don't think
that's a productive way to engage with the working group, especially
given how much this issue has been discussed before.


𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 00:56:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:09 UTC