- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 17:32:54 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Rob Crowther <robertc@boogdesign.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Jul 10, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: >> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On >> Behalf Of fantasai >> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:38 AM >> To: Rob Crowther >> Cc: www-style@w3.org >> Subject: Re: A List Apart: Articles: Prefix or Posthack >> >> On 07/09/2010 09:47 AM, Rob Crowther wrote: >>> Richard Fink wrote: >>>> Ok, there's a fair case to be made for an expiration. Never say >> "Never". >>>> But why should one release cycle be the trigger? I'm sorry, but that >>>> seems >>>> kind of arbitrary, if not solipsistic. >>> >>> If dropping the prefix is to be tied to release cycles, why not make >> the >>> number cycles before dropping it be proportional to the number of >>> release cycles during which the prefixed version existed? >> >> This makes sense to me. > > That does sound very pragmatic. But it means some properties - like -moz-border-radius > - could be with us for 3/4 more releases depending on how you count. Frankly, I'd be happy if stayed around for one major release (or a year, whichever is longer). That's plenty of time IMO to add update the style sheets. > By the time we > reach the final deadline, someone somewhere will demand why oh why something that has > worked fine for so many years was taken out and broke his corporate intranet search > page. He would probably only notice when he upgraded his browser, and then complain to the intranet author (or Web-page-based tool provider) about why their crappy pages break every time the browser is updated. Didn't that vendor claim compatibility with browser X? > It may also implicitly assume that most users do run the latest version of a > given browser. Why is that? Old browsers are not affected by newer browsers, only by the removal or changing of the properties in the style sheets. > That is not always the case, especially for those widely used in government > and corporate environments. (e.g. IE6) Yeah, tell me about it! :( > > But while it may not fit everyone everywhere, it still sounds like a reasonable compromise > Between 'support forever' and 'take out that prefix asap'. Right. Something in between is fine.
Received on Sunday, 11 July 2010 00:34:01 UTC