Re: vendor prefix properties diverging from official properties

From: "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 10:16 PM
To: "François REMY" <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Cc: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>; "Zack Weinberg" 
<zweinberg@mozilla.com>; <www-style@w3.org>
Subject: Re: vendor prefix properties diverging from official properties

> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:41 PM, François REMY
> <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>> [BTW, I don't like 'draft' as it's too long to type, nor
>> '-w3c-'  since it would mean that w3c properties are
>> not well defined and implemented by browsers, while
>> the objective of the w3c is the complete opposite.
>> '-wd-' seems better to my.]
>
> Does that imply we'd rename the properties when they reach Last Call,
> even if they haven't actually changed?  That certainly seems like a
> bad idea, especially if the spec returns to Working Draft later.  Or
> do we use -wd- even for Last Calls?

No. The 'wd' prefix would still be used when the document swtich
from Working Draft to Last Call. There's no reason that would
require such an update, since a last call is still a working draft that
may return to the Working Draft level if major concerns are dis-
covered.

> Also, should we even use a hyphen prefix here?  My impression is that
> hyphens are used in vendor prefixes so that there's no possibility of
> conflict with official property names, but if the names are all
> standard, this is a nonissue.  Dropping the hyphen makes it clearer
> that these are standard properties, which I think is a very good
> thing.

Well, I agree with you here. Using a prefixed hyphen would not be
necessary, since, as you noted, the property is 'beeing standardized'.

> I prefer "draft-" because it's clearer.  "wd-" is opaque.  I don't
> think length is a big deal -- "draft-" or "-draft-" is still shorter
> to type than "-webkit-", and usually the large majority of the
> properties you use are from finalized standards.

I'm not against the use of 'draft-'. If implementors agree on that
name, it would not be a concern for me.

Received on Saturday, 27 February 2010 09:55:15 UTC