- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:27:45 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: whatwg List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "Gordon P. Hemsley" <gphemsley@gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2012-11-17 19:17, Adam Barth wrote: >> ... >> >> I would prefer if the spec described what implementations actually do >> rather than your opinion about what they should do. To answer your >> specific questions: >> ... > > That works well if something is widely supported already. It works less well > if you have one initial and one incomplete implementation only. Which implementation is initial and which is incomplete? AFAIK, both IE and Chromium consider their implementation of this feature done. >> 1) Don't bother dropping the "X-". Everyone who implements this >> feature uses the X- and dropping it is just going to cause unnecessary >> interoperability problems. > > There's no *need* to drop it, but if research on this topic leads to the > conclusion that the functionality is needed, but the current X- prototype > isn't sufficient anyway it might be worth considering. Currently, I don't see a use case for dropping the X- prefix. Perhaps there's one I don't understand? Adam
Received on Monday, 19 November 2012 20:44:47 UTC