- From: Rainer Åhlfors <rahlfors@wildcatsoftware.net>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 17:05:29 -0700
- To: "'Boris Zbarsky'" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "'Daniel Beardsmore'" <public@telcontar.net>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Even MS has their own prefix, "mso-", although it fails to begin with a leading dash as the spec recommends. Rainer -----Original Message----- From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Boris Zbarsky Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 5:01 PM To: Daniel Beardsmore Cc: www-style@w3.org Subject: Re: [css3-text] Word wrap confirmation Daniel Beardsmore wrote: > I didn't say that it acts similarly, Boris did. But it would seem > better, if such a feature is defined in CSS (which it is), to at least > try to tie in one's implementation to real CSS Only if your implementation actually follows the spec. If your implementation is known to be seriously buggy, as far as the spec is concerned, giving it the spec name is a bad idea. It means people can't use the spec version in their pages (for UAs that support it) because it'll break the page in your buggy UA. It's standard procedure for the browser vendors who care about the health of the web to have vendor prefixes on the parts of their CSS support that's not really per spec yet, as well as on their extensions to the CSS standards ("-o" for opera, "-khtml" for KHTML, "-moz" for Gecko, etc). In any case, in this case the value wasn't there in CSS2 and the implementation in Gecko predates its addition to CSS2.1. So it was added with a vendor prefix, being an extension to the then-existing CSS standard. Since CSS2.1 came on the scene, the implementation hasn't really been revisited to check whether it complies with what CSS2.1 says, so to be safe it's staying as a -moz- property. > This is, though, how most browser development goes anyway :) I should hope that "most browser development" doesn't mean that you take your CSS extensions that happen to do something similar to a standard feature and just give them the same name! See also https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=261081 for what it's worth. -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 00:04:49 UTC