On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Edward O'Connor wrote: > In the CSS WG we've historically allowed implementations to ship > unprefixed properties when the spec containing those properties hits CR. > Selector combinators are a funny case—they can't be prefixed—so we > should be extra careful about shipping them prematurely. > > But as far as I can tell, these combinators *aren't even [in a spec that's > visible enough to receive wider discussion]*, much less in a spec that's hit > (or will soon hit) CR. This seems highly irregular. Just to state explicitly in this thread the idea that no doubt many people have had in mind: One way out of this is to ship it prefixed, as in ^-webkit-cat or /-moz-hat or whatever other <combinator-prefix> you fancy from the "Pseudo-elements vs. combinators" thread. This doesn't even commit CSS to a particular choice of <combinator-prefix> (to the extent that any prefixed feature can be retracted), because the shipped choice would only ever be used in conjunction with a vendor prefix. (Whether such an approach is useful depends in part on whether a prefixed implementation is a sufficient response to the importance of pushing forward quickly that Google perceives.) pjrm.Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 06:56:11 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 6 February 2014 06:56:12 UTC