W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2010

[Bug 10740] encourage use of SHARED (vendor) prefixes: experimental--feature

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:21:26 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1P0UVC-0005iV-Ol@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10740

Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i
                   |                            |ua.no

Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |ian@hixie.ch
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX

--- Comment #3 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2010-09-27 14:21:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)

> I encourage you to search the www-style archives for thorough discussion
> of vendor prefixes, and why the current state of affairs is the best possible
> solution.

Can you help with a pointer?

--- Comment #4 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2010-09-27 15:37:53 UTC ---
I suppose you meant this thread: "Suggestion for generic CSS vendor prefix"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Mar/0312.html

I particulary noted this reply of yours:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Mar/0329.html

" an *excellent* suggestion for how to maintain the current vendor
   prefix situation, but reduce the pain for authors: CSS Variables! "

My comment: I believe CSS variables can be classified as a form of distributed
extensibility. 

Before that, you said that shared prefixes would be
" painful to authors who don't realize that browsers may implement the property
differently at first, , or may implement different drafts "
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Mar/0319.html

My comment:  

I'm unsure about whether the initial proposar in that thread  suggested to
completely remove vendor prefixes. But at the very least, my own proposal was
to make e.g. -experimental- synonymous with -vendor-. Thus both -webkit- and
-experimental- would work. 

I also think that some authors don't realize that -webkit-foo and -moz-foo
might not be the same foo.  I'm even inclinded to think that authors would
accept that -experimental-foo could lead to differing results more easily than
they accept that -webkit-foo and -moz-foo could lead to differnt results.

--- Comment #5 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2010-09-28 07:21:26 UTC ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: Concurred with Tab and Anne.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 07:42:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:25 UTC