W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2011

Re: CSS vendor extension issues

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 17:39:35 -0800
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel@glazman.org>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20111109013935.GA15067@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Tuesday 2011-11-08 21:53 +0100, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> The only thing I know is the following one : what happened with
> -*-border-radius was lame and we decided to implement new processes
> to avoid a fiasco of same magnitude. Then CSS Gradients arrived
> and browser vendors did the very same mistake. I think it's good to
> have the TAG in the loop here. Feedback #1 from Web Agencies at this
> time is the pain it is to deal with multiple prefixed versions of the
> same property...

They have the choice not to use the prefixed properties.  Given that
they've made that choice to do so *despite* their complaints about
it, I suspect they might not like a solution that takes away their
ability to make that choice.

(I agree with the feedback that we need to be better about
standardizing high-demand features quickly.  I think we can do that
by keeping them limited in scope and not adding and stabilizing
every addition anybody asks for before moving to CR.  In both of the
cases you mention, the group resolved to advance quickly and the
editor then went through all the comments made on the spec and added
a bunch of requested features, delaying advancement to CR.  Those
additions would be better made by developing the next level in
parallel.)

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 01:42:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:40 GMT