- From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
- Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 14:03:15 +0300
- To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Masayuki Nakano <masayuki@d-toybox.com>
- CC: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
On 08/11/2013 06:55 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Masayuki Nakano <masayuki@d-toybox.com <mailto:masayuki@d-toybox.com>> wrote: > > Basically, we don't define new DOM key name values except a few numbered keys such as Fxx and LaunchApplicationxx. D3E spec allows to name by > browser venders, but I'd like to suggest that such keys should be vender prefixed for compatibility between browsers in the future. The key values > are accessed with script. So, if they compare it with a value, they can drop the vender prefix by the script. So, it won't cause the problem like > CSS's vender prefix. Then, web developers don't believe any non-standard key names as standard (spec'ed) key names. > > > This seems to me that it shares many of the problems of CSS vendor prefixes. Web developers don't (and shouldn't need to!) keep track of browser > release details. Most web developers will use it just the same whether it's MozPrintableKey or just PrintableKey and the only thing affecting whether > it becomes something every browser needs to implement (and whether the feature can be changed) is the amount of web content that depends on it. MozPrintableKey is just a temporary hack and prefixes in all forms should be avoided if possible. -Olli
Received on Sunday, 11 August 2013 11:03:58 UTC