- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:05:39 +0100
- To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "'Binyamin'" <7raivis@inbox.lv>
- CC: "'www-style list'" <www-style@w3.org>
± > Dropping whole selector list containing an invalid selector would lead
± > to many future errors.
± >
± > * Why not just to ignore the invalid selector styling?
± > * What is the benefit of dropping whole selector list? The performance?
± >
± > Today's vendor prefixes leaded problem:
± > @-webkit-keyframes,@keyframes{} is be shorter then to repeat whole
± > style list again and again. And repeating same thing leads to maintenance
± and performance problems.
±
± This is indeed a legacy mistake that we wish we could change, but can't. Lots
± of people use this as a "feature" to do browser-targetting, by putting in a
± selector with a browser-specific pseudoclass that doesn't match anything; in
± other browsers, it'll force the entire rule to be dropped. If we changed it,
± we'd suddenly break a bunch of pages by applying styles that weren't
± intended to apply.
±
± So, unfortunately, this has to stay the way it is.
±
± ~TJ
Though I think the "repeat-with-various-prefixes" issue would have been eased if the group did adopt the "vendor-tag/vendor-bang" proposal which was made quite a while ago [1]. I'm still not sure why it wasn't pursued further, this is so much better than the statu quo. Duplicating @keyframes or @supports rules is a complete madness we could have avoided with this proposal.
François
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0271.html
Received on Saturday, 10 January 2015 10:06:27 UTC