Re: Possible Vendor Prefix Solution

I didn't intend to demand anything, I just wanted to end my reply with a
question to invoke a response.

I agree that experimental/draft properties probably do more harm than good,
and solving the cause is always better than addressing the symptoms.

Tom


On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> -David
>
> --
> 𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
> 𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
>