- From: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 00:09:26 -0700
- To: Sigbjørn Vik <sigbjorn@opera.com>
- Cc: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BANLkTimAzRhAm1gMgN=H54whTQxrhx4HUw@mail.gmail.com>
The -beta- idea is just a bad idea, as was made clear in the discussion on the blog post suggesting it. I don't see any reason to spend time worrying about it at all. - James On Jun 3, 2011 12:04 AM, "Sigbjørn Vik" <sigbjorn@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:40:59 +0200, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> > wrote: > >>> I take my words back regarding the prefix. The new vendor prefix is >>> -beta-, one prefix to rule them all. See >>> http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2010/03/css_vendor_pref_1.html >>> Should we be avant-garde here, and be the first to implement -beta-? >>> (I don't think any other specifications have picked up on this to >>> date.) >> >> What would the expected behavior be if two user agents use the same >> initiator type name but they mean something slightly different? It would >> seem that having a vendor prefix, instead of a beta prefix, might be >> helpful in distinguishing the two. > > I don't see that being the case. If user agent A has implemented > -beta-compileTime, user agent B would probably choose to call their > implementation something else if it is not compatible, for instance > -beta-compilationTime or -beta-ESToMachineCode. -beta- allows multiple > vendors to use the same name, but it doesn't make it a requirement. > > I don't have any strong opinions on this, but I recalled the discussion, > and the conclusion I linked to seems to make sense to me. I see little > need to have that same discussion again on this mailing list, so as long > as an informed decision is made, I'll be happy regardless of which > conclusion is reached. > > -- > Sigbjørn Vik > Quality Assurance > Opera Software >
Received on Friday, 3 June 2011 07:09:52 UTC