Fw: A List Apart: Articles: Prefix or Posthack

Sorry, forgot to send a copy to the mailling list.

From: François REMY 
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 8:22 PM
To: Tab Atkins Jr. 
Subject: Re: A List Apart: Articles: Prefix or Posthack

My own thought beeing that if a feature is not good implemented
enough to be unprefixed, it should not be bundled with a public
version of a browser.

Experimental properties should be only present in nightly and CTP
builds, not in final version; when they are in final versions, they create
precedents, they are used in real websites by uninformed webdesigner
and they make it more and more difficult to make changes to the spec
since the UA’s have got positive (but partial) feedback from users.

But this debate is end-less because it’s not within the scope of this group
since those properties are *proprietary extensions* to CSS.

-----Message d'origine----- 
From: Tab Atkins Jr. 
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 8:08 PM 
To: Brad Kemper 
Cc: www-style list 
Subject: Re: A List Apart: Articles: Prefix or Posthack 

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> A new article on ALA about vendor prefixes in CSS, by Eric Meyer:
> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/prefix-or-posthack/

Heh, I was going to post this to the list as well.  ^_^

Eric's justification for vendor prefixes matches my own thoughts
exactly.  I like the vendor prefixes for exactly the reasons he gives,
and similarly think that a unified prefix is a horrible idea.

We can still explore dropping prefixes on parts of things earlier,
either by piecemealing specs or chopping them up more finely, but only
when we actually do have interop and a reasonable belief that the
syntax won't change.

~TJ