Re: A List Apart: Articles: Prefix or Posthack

On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:21 AM, "Eric A. Meyer" <> wrote:

> At 5:58 PM -0700 7/7/10, Brad Kemper wrote:
>> Agreed. I thought it was interesting that he mentioned the raging
>> debate about shadow blurs, as that one seems most in danger of
>> becoming unprefixed while still largely inconsistent (esp. if MS
>> follows the current spec and no one else does).
>   The shadow-blur debate got mentioned because it seemed to perfectly capture the dangers of not prefixing and the advantages of requiring prefixing.  And also because it was the trigger that pushed me to propose and then write the article that had been rattling around my head for a few months.
>   It does bother me (rather a lot) that there are no interoperable implementations of shadows and yet there's a chance of the prefix being dropped.  That's just wrong.  There's a very real possibility that there could be three public and inconsistent implementations.

Yes, that is my concern also. I hope the implementors will show restraint and not remove the prefix until this matter is settled. I have begun writing up a summary of where we are with it, as Simon asked yesterday, but I had to set it aside to deal with some other stuff (like work, right now), but that should be ready tonight. I think we will need to decide quickly what to do, as I am sure MS especially will not want to delay their IE9 schedule, or miss the opportunity to have the non-prefixed version in it (I can't speak for them, but it seems likely they would much prefer to have it settled and ready before their big launch, rather than remove the prefix shortly after launch, as it would affect their Marketing). 

> If Microsoft ships an unprefixed 
>   I was planning to post here about the piece once the piece was published and public feedback was received, but you beat me to it!  I should've known that would happen.

Yeah, isn't RSS wonderful?

Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 18:34:30 UTC