W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

CSS vendor prefix flap -- ongoing? update?

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:48:36 -0700
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AC36360@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
The pattern of 'vendor prefix' in CSS is something we've talked about a lot, but I'm not sure if there's an issue currently.

I see in twitter-land some flap about opera implementing webkit prefixes.

If browsers implemented both unprefixed and prefixed  values, then site designers could just switch to unprefixed and there would be a transition plan.

Even if someone wants to implement someone else's prefix, isn't there some way of illustrating it as  "non-conforming" ?

A mutual interest pact so we don't get into browser wars again?

I could make a separate wiki page for the vendor prefix analysis.

What are the URIs for vendor prefix names? Are vendor prefixes like XML namespaces? How are they different?
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 15:49:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:53 GMT