W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: vendor prefixes considered harmful

From: Glen <glen.84@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 20:26:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4BB7884F.2000206@gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On 2010/03/24 21:58, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 3/19/10 5:13 PM, Glen wrote:
>> This would be used by all vendors who have an implementation matching
>> the current WD.
> What happens when the current WD changes?
How many WDs would there be in most cases? If there were just a few, you 
could use -wd1, -wd2 (as has been previously suggested), although that 
would mean that browsers would have to recognize multiple properties for 
BC. Not ideal I would imagine.

I agree that the issue is with the time it takes for specs to reach CR. 
Is it not somehow possible for individual properties (or small sets of 
properties) to be moved to CR independently?
>> I just think that this is ridiculous:
>> border-top-left-radius: 8px;
>> border-top-right-radius: 8px;
>> -khtml-border-radius-topleft: 8px;
>> -khtml-border-radius-topright: 8px;
>> -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px;
>> -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px;
>> -webkit-border-top-left-radius: 8px;
>> -webkit-border-top-right-radius: 8px;
> These don't all match each other (or the current WD), note.
> -Boris
Well, they have the same effect in most (simple) cases. This is similar 
to what I have to use now, and it works. (using the shorthand 4-value 
version makes it shorter).
Received on Saturday, 3 April 2010 18:27:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:44 UTC