Re: Our position on vendor prefixed css properties

Maybe we should include this information in the page of the standard
property. Having a compatibility table that reads "prefixed" next to a
version might not be enough, especially for properties that are still not
supported in their standard version across the board, or that older
browsers with a lot of market share still do not support their standard
version.

I think a page should exist for every vendor prefixed feature (be it CSS,
JavaScript or HTML) - but it should not contain any information and only
redirect to the standard version, where information regarding all of the
versions of that feature (prefixed and standard) would be available.


☆*PhistucK*


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Rob^_^ <iecustomizer@hotmail.com> wrote:

>   Hi Paul and Eliot,
>
> I think its important that they are not only left in, but that they are
> expanded to include webkit and moz prefixes...
>
> for interoperability and backwards compatibility website developers are
> required to use vendor specific prefixes in their css.
>
>
> eg.
>
>
> .pop.in{     animation-delay: 0s;     animation-duration: 1s;     animation-name: popin;     -webkit-animation: popin 1s 0s alternate both;     -o-animation-delay: 0s;     -o-animation-duration: 1s;     -o-animation-name: popin;     -webkit-transform: scale(1);     tansform: scale(1);     -moz-transform: scale(1);     -o-transform: scale(1);
> }
>
> commonly in support forums...developers will declare... ‘it works in browser X but not in browser y’
>
> the stock answer may be ‘you haven’t included the vendor prefixed rules for your version of the browser’ or ‘you haven’t included the standard rule’ for compliant browsers.
>
> Perhaps as with depreciated html elements, the documentation should state the Standard css property that replaces the vendor prefixed property rule.
>
> I have a full listing of vendor prefixed css rules if you wish... or you can query a browser support by typing
>
> document.body.style
>
> in the console tab of the browser’s DOM inspector (Page inspector, IE f12 or Dragonfly or FireBug).
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
>  *From:* Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 13, 2014 7:38 AM
> *To:* Paul Verbeek <paul@webinthehat.com> ; public-webplatform@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Our position on vendor prefixed css properties
>
>
> Remove.
>
>
>
> These were likely left over from the original import of the content on
> MSDN, where they are appropriate. They don’t really apply to Webplatform
> docs.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Eliot
>
>
>
> *From:* verbeek.p@gmail.com [mailto:verbeek.p@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Paul
> Verbeek
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 12, 2014 1:29 PM
> *To:* public-webplatform@w3.org
> *Subject:* Our position on vendor prefixed css properties
>
>
>
> I was looking through the site and found a few css properties that are
> vendor-prefixed, like
> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/css/properties/-ms-radial-gradient.
>
>
>
> Are we adding are this vendor prefixed pages or removing them? I would go
> for the latter. Especially in this case because, as far as I know, there
> was never a stable IE version that had this property.
>
>
>
> Paul.
>