- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:05:33 +0000
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
On 5/3/12 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. >From your comment and others, It sounds like there's strong interest produce a Note about the various issues surrounding vendor prefixes, notably: - vendor prefix lifecycle, - what to do when prefix usage goes wrong (the -webkit saga), - steps to avoid prefix usage going wrong again in the future, - information about prefixes for devs (when and how to use them, if at all?), - vendor prefixes outside of CSS. James, would you be willing to do a first pass? I'd also really like to see some input from web developers on this subject so as to have as balanced a perspective as possible. Thanks, --tobie
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 14:06:45 UTC