- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:34:43 -0700
- To: "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 7/8/10 7:41 PM, Eric A. Meyer wrote: > I know you're asking Richard, but I'll step in and ask why it costs more > than a little to do, in effect, this: > > if (property == '-moz-box-shadow' || property == 'box-shadow') boxShadow(); If that's all you want, I'm not sure why you want it; see below. In any case, it looks like we had some infrastructure for this sort of aliasing added in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93156 but it was removed in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458588 Note that this was an alias, not the sort of thing that webkit and IE do (where the prefixed property continues to behave differently from the unprefixed one if it did so to start with). > As it is, your choice to drop prefixed-property support is hostile to > authors Why is it more hostile than having the alias would be? Any use case that's covered by having aliases with behavior identical to the unprefixed property in the browser is covered by the author doing, for your example above: -moz-box-shadow: ...; box-shadow: ...; as far as I can tell. Am I missing something? -Boris
Received on Friday, 9 July 2010 03:35:18 UTC