- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:03:11 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/03/2010 08:54 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > That said, I am also OK with dropping vendor prefixes on particular > properties that are known to be stable even if the spec they're in is > not in CR yet. The problem is knowing what's stable. In the case of > HTML5, there's a pretty simple resolution procedure for this: asking Ian > gives a good first-order approximation. Is there a CSS equivalent? > > Perhaps parts of the spec should be annotated with per-section stability > indicators, similar to how HTML5 operates? I think lately we've been trying to split out into smaller modules, reducing them to stable functionality sets so that they can get to CR quicker. That makes per-section stability indicators less necessary. HTML5 doesn't have this option, so per-section stability indicators are used. Also, approximations could be wrong. Before Brad redesigned the way border-image works, I would have said it was stable. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 23:03:48 UTC