- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 16:45:05 +0000
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Cc: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, public-nextweb@w3.org
On Saturday, 17 November 2012 at 15:34, François REMY wrote: > | I prefer the proposed api go into a prefixed or data- or x- > | form so that it is parallel with the proposal, so if it evolves > | to the point where it becomes native there is no risk of the > | unexpected. > > That's what I was afraid when I spoke about implementing faithfully an > ever-changing spec. Prefixing is probably a key solution to avoid problems, > but we can also burry prefixing inside the code generator. Having said that, we've seen that prefixing sometimes makes no difference with regards to defacto standards (e.g., CSS prefixes being adopted across browsers, and browsers having to support those prefixes indefinitely to remain compatible with content that is no longer being maintained on the Web). Also, I think the IETF has also stopped recommending people use x-* in HTTP headers for the same reason. I guess we need to consider the options very carefully here. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Saturday, 17 November 2012 16:45:35 UTC