Re: [IndexedDB] Problems unprefixing IndexedDB

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> Or to make this more clear:  As one of the few UAs that actually drops
> prefixed versions, we have tried dropping them after a deprecation period
> and we have tried dropping them immediately.  So we have some actual
> experience with this sort of thing.  And in our experience, if the prefixed
> property wasn't available for very long, dropping it immediately leads to
> fewer problems than does dropping it after a deprecation period.  Of course
> if the property was available for a while and is widely used (-moz-opacity
> comes to mind), a deprecation period does help ameliorate things somewhat.
>

So long as there's no transition period, you can't really expect people to
not preemptively add the unprefixed name.


On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> > That makes it impossible for *anyone* to avoid breakage (unless they add
> the
> > unprefixed version before unprefixing happens).  You're exchanging
> avoidable
> > breakage for unavoidable breakage, which doesn't make sense.
>
> It's not unavoidable.  You just have to future-proof your code.  For
> instance:
>
>   if (!("indexedDB" in window)) {
>     window.indexedDB =
>         "webkitIndexedDB" in window ? window.webkitIndexedDB
>       : "mozIndexedDB" in window ? window.mozIndexedDB
>       : ...
>   }
>

No, this is the "unless" in my first sentence.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JulSep/0395.html

-- 
Glenn Maynard