Re: vendor prefixes considered harmful

On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Glen wrote:

> 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.

Yes, and the problem is just exacerbated, not solved. Because now, as an author, I will be including the original implementor experimental feature with '-moz-', '-webkit-', etc. in order to have it work in older browsers, plus the un-prefixed version, plus ADDITIONALLY all the various '-wd#-' versions. Then, if I want the new improved version of '-wd3', I have to add it to my growing list of prefixes to include.