W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2010

Re: vendor prefixes considered harmful

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:47:21 -0500
Message-ID: <4B8F6589.1010804@mit.edu>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 3/4/10 2:36 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:
> I think if we did a css working group prefix, we would also need to allow for some sort of versioning when something changed more significantly ('-wg-v1-border-image', '-wg-v2-border-image'), or even for some smaller changes (such as what percentages mean to 'border-radius'). This would mean authors would have to opt in to get later versions, but that's not too different from when we move from prefixed to non-prefixed, I suppose. It would also mean the continuance of a bunch of old versions floating around the Web, from authors who liked the old ways better. If we had '-wg-v1-border-radius', '-wg-v2-border-radius',  '-wg-v3-border-radius', and  'border-radius', would we ever be able to get rid of the older versions?

For what it's worth, Gecko's usual policy is to drop the -moz version 
after the unprefixed one is available (in some situations with a release 
in which both are supported in the middle to give people time to 
migrate).  The other approach, of keeping -moz properties forever even 
though standard versions exist, is too likely to cause people to write 
code that only works in Gecko for no good reason whatsoever, which is 
something we generally consider to be bad for the web.

Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 07:47:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:43 UTC