W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Procedural (non-technical) point about freezing the cat and hat combinators before they've even been defined (was Re: Shadow DOM: Hat and Cat -- if that's your real name.)

From: Peter Moulder <pjrm@mail.internode.on.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 17:34:27 +1100
To: www-style@w3.org
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <20140206063427.GA1314@mail.internode.on.net>
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Edward O'Connor wrote:

> In the CSS WG we've historically allowed implementations to ship
> unprefixed properties when the spec containing those properties hits CR.
> Selector combinators are a funny case—they can't be prefixed—so we
> should be extra careful about shipping them prematurely.
> 
> But as far as I can tell, these combinators *aren't even [in a spec that's
> visible enough to receive wider discussion]*, much less in a spec that's hit
> (or will soon hit) CR. This seems highly irregular.

Just to state explicitly in this thread the idea that no doubt many people have
had in mind:

One way out of this is to ship it prefixed, as in ^-webkit-cat or /-moz-hat
or whatever other <combinator-prefix> you fancy from the "Pseudo-elements
vs. combinators" thread.  This doesn't even commit CSS to a particular choice
of <combinator-prefix> (to the extent that any prefixed feature can be
retracted), because the shipped choice would only ever be used in conjunction
with a vendor prefix.

(Whether such an approach is useful depends in part on whether a prefixed
 implementation is a sufficient response to the importance of pushing forward
 quickly that Google perceives.)

pjrm.
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 06:34:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:18 UTC