- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:44:48 +0100
- 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 solutions. 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. ~Grauw -- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 02:44:44 UTC