- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:38:02 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:21:17 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:14:48 +0100, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: >> On Mar 12, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:01:12 +0100, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: >>>> WebKit already uses 8 and 9 for animation keyframe-related rules: >>>> >>>> const unsigned short WEBKIT_KEYFRAMES_RULE = 8; >>>> const unsigned short WEBKIT_KEYFRAME_RULE = 9; >>> >>> The specification already states that private extensions should be >>> outside the range 0-1000. That range is reserved for the CSS WG. >> >> At what point during the standardization process should we switch from >> considering these as private extensions to values that are approved by >> the CSS WG? > > Probably at the point where you rename them from WEBKIT_ to something > else? For prefixed properties this usually happens at the CR phase. I'm > happy with settling constants before then if it is at least somewhat > clear the proposal is going to make it. FWIW, since it is pretty clear animation is going to happen I'm happy to make NAMESPACE_RULE 10 instead. I really couldn't care less. We could also make it 2, but it seems some people are less happy with that at this point. (Though @charset really never should have been allocated a constant and corresponding object...) -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 18:38:47 UTC