- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:44:53 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/24/2010 01:29 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:07:19 +0100, Aryeh Gregor > <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Robert O'Callahan >> <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: >>> If there is a problem we need to solve here, it's that for some properties >>> there's a long gap between the syntax and behavior freezing and the spec >>> going into CR, at which time unprefixed implementations are officially >>> allowed. Fixing that requires a change in policy and/or process. >> >> So does anyone have a specific proposal on how to fix this? What >> would be an appropriate procedure to freeze syntax for a given >> property and allow unprefixed use? There have been some fairly >> specific suggestions from the "introduce a shared prefix" camp, but no >> one has come up with an actual proposal for dropping prefixes sooner >> (that I've seen). This is a real problem, and a solution is needed. > > I think for properties that are relatively stable we should just declare > them "implementable" regardless of what the status is of the draft > specification they happen to be in. If a property is declared > "implementable" it can be implemented without prefix and major changes > to the property will no longer be made unless major issues are found. > Properties on this list would include e.g. overflow-x, overflow-y, and > box-sizing. box-sizing is in a CR already. http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/#box-sizing ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 21:45:23 UTC