Re: Our position on vendor prefixed css properties

​This sounds great.​


☆*PhistucK*


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>wrote:

> Thanks, Scott.
>
> This sounds good. If we are talking about creating separate topics for
> each vendor-prefixed version, I have a couple of reservations.
>
> 1) Where we autogenerate the list of child topics, say, on the table in
> the CSS Properties page [1], we'll have to find a way of keeping the vendor
> prefixed items off of the table. Otherwise, the table will be fairly
> useless if the hundreds of -moz, -ms, -opera, -webkit, items are at the top
> of the table.
> 2) I fear (and this may be unwarranted) that having border-radius,
> -moz-border-radius, -ms-border-radius, -opera-border-radius, etc. all on
> the same site may adversely affect search results for the unprefixed topic.
>
> Because of things like that, I wonder if we could not have the canonical,
> unprefixed topic with a section for vendor-prefixed versions? It could be
> as simple as:
>
> <h3>Vendor-prefixed use</h3>
> The border-radius property was implemented as -moz-border-radius (Firefox
> 1.7 and earlier), -webkit-border-radius (Chrome .2; Safari 3.0).
> [[Include all prefixed versions, write about notable changes or variances
> from the spec, mention continued support.
> Etc.
>
> And can include all of the things you note below.
>
> Thoughts? If you're already suggesting that this be in the original topic,
> then, in the words of Emily Latella, "Nevermind."
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eliot
>
> [1] http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/css/properties
>
>
>
> From: Scott Murray [mailto:shm@alignedleft.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 9:29 AM
> To: Paul Verbeek
> Cc: PhistucK; Rob^_^; public-webplatform@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Our position on vendor prefixed css properties
>
> Yes, to provide a little more context to Paul's comment:  If the goal is
> to provide comprehensive documentation, then all the (messy) vendor
> prefixes should be included.  But, since the prefixed properties usually
> behave the same as the "official" one, in most cases we could avoid
> duplicating descriptions, and instead include a note like, for example:
>
>         -moz-border-radius matches the standard behavior of border-radius,
> though it is only recognized by Mozilla-based browsers; please reference
> documentation for border-radius.
>
> In cases when the vendor-specific does not sync with the standard, this
> could read:
>
>         -moz-border-radius diverges from the standard behavior
> of border-radius, and is only recognized by Mozilla-based browsers.
>         …[full documentation of this implementation follows]…
>
> The actual language used can change; I just want to propose avoiding
> duplication of documentation, while still aiming to be comprehensive.
>
> [P.S. This is my first post, and I am new to WebPlatform, so hello!  I
> just met Doug, Paul, Jen, Julee, and others at the Fluent Doc Sprint on
> Tuesday.]
>
>         Cheers,
>         Scott
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Paul Verbeek <paul@webinthehat.com> wrote:
>
>
> I just discussed this with Doug and Scott Murray, and we came with the
> following:
> Some vendor prefixed pages have a different behavior than the standard
> version, others have special notes on it (like the -ms-radial-gradient is
> only implemented in IE preview versions). So we leave all the prefixed
> pages, linking to the standard page and adding notes and examples when
> necessary.
>
> This is probably the most useful for people searching for information on
> the prefixed version of a css property.
>
> On 13 March 2014 00:34, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 7:38 AM
> To: Paul Verbeek ; 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.
>
>
>
>