Re: Purpose of ring 0 and vendor prefixes (was: Re: Ringmark is now open source)

I agree with James here : this CG shouldn't just be a rubber stamping
office of the other WG's output. It should instead be a new kind of input
for them.

Mohamed

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:42 AM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote:

> On 05/03/2012 10:19 AM, Tobie Langel wrote:
>
>  Isn't the vendor-prefix conversation already happening in the CSS WG? If
>> so, I suggest we just wait for the output of that group and apply it to
>> the CG (and its test suites).
>>
>
> I disagree. Irrespective of the decisions of the CSS WG, the goal of this
> work should be a set of aspirational documents encouraging rapid
> implementation of the most desired features across browsers so that
> developers to depend on them as soon as possible. Prefixes have the
> opposite effect; they make it hard for developers to do the right thing,
> easy for specs to get lost in committee, and encourage market
> fragmentation. We should be working as hard as we can to *dis*courage
> prefixed implementations in long-lived products and instead encourage rapid
> convergence on the final prefix-free forms of new features.
>
>


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €