- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 21:02:21 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Thursday 2010-07-08 22:41 -0400, Eric A. Meyer wrote: > At 6:34 PM -0700 7/8/10, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > >What makes you think it costs little? > > 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(); > > As it is, your choice to drop prefixed-property support is hostile > to authors, and I'm having extreme difficulty understanding why you > think it's a good idea to take that path. As much as possible, we want to avoid authors putting Gecko-specific content on the Web. Authors who are using -moz-box-shadow should also be using box-shadow; if they're not, they're writing Gecko-specific CSS (and perhaps some additional WebKit-specific CSS, etc., alongside it, which is still hostile to any new entrants in the browser space along with any omitted existing browsers). So we have a choice between: 1. supporting the -moz- prefix permanently 2. supporting both for one release cycle to give authors a transition period 3. dropping the prefix immediately I have trouble seeing any advantages of (2) over (3), since if we wait longer to drop support for the prefixed version, there will only be *more* content written using the prefix. I really don't want to do (1), since it means that authors will permanently be able to write Gecko-specific CSS without ever seeing that it's a problem. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Friday, 9 July 2010 04:02:50 UTC