W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Supporting propriety "Extensions"

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:44:48 +0100
Message-ID: <421BEE20.8010209@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: www-style@w3.org

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>> For those two cases it doesn't matter if the units are obscure (e.g.
>> "_moz_ch" would be perfectly find for an experimental implementation of
>> the proposed "ch" unit).
> I understand "how" but do not understand "why"...
> What is the purpose of introducing namespaces using such strange method 
> and notation?

I think Anne explained the need for it well enough:
"This addresses the future, not now. So that vendor extensions are not
going to conflict with new W3C CSS specifications."
So we have established that there needs to be *some* kind of mechanism.
Given that need, the CSS group came up with a convention of prefixing
vendor-specific properties with -vendor-. I do not see what is so
strange about the notation.

If you have a better suggestion, which works (in a backwards compatible
way), please :). Complaining is always easier than thinking towards

Personally, given that there currently is an established method however,
I do not think it would be worth the effort to change it. I don't even
see a reason to. The method seems to work well enough, and is used by a
number of implementations. I understand it is a little troublesome for
units, but heh, then don't prefix the units and just bet on it not
conflicting with any future standard.


Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 02:44:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:17 UTC