Re: Selectors, vendor prefixes (again...) and IE9

From: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
>> From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 8:08 AM
>> My comments regarding border-radius and ::selection are very different.
>> First the former has a wide user base, not the latter.
>
> That something does not yet have a user base is no reason to make it
> costlier to use. Forcing authors to add a new ruleset with every new
> browser that adds support for ::selection seems unlikely to help with
> its adoption.

In fact, I think the whole idea behind the vendor prefix is bad.
If we follow this way of thinking, we should never use vendor
prefix, even for BETA version of properties, because it would
lead to this kind of situation.

The thurth here is that no UA should go out in an RTM release
with a new property which is not standardized (or at, least, that
as been agreed by everyone as "sufficiently interoperable").

Then, we run into the CR => PR => R problem, where some
implementations are needed to move on. Well, I see no reason
why we couldn't implement a feature in nightlies (or Beta, if
we speak about IE browsers) and don't compile it when we're
in the RC/RTM stage if no concensus has been found on the
opportunity to do so.

Vendor prefixes are not fair, I continue to stand on my position.
Vendor prefixes were a solution to a problem. It's not because
it is a solution that's the best solution. We now see it isn't.

> Let us try it. But then where does it go ? Are you suggesting taking
> CSS3 Selectors back to WD ?

It would be a problem if every UA should prefix features of the CSS 3
Selectors module if they decide it should go back to WD. This solution
is clearly unacceptable. So, it removes UA's the ability to say "a part of
this document is not good at all, we need to return to WD until it's fixed".

Received on Sunday, 16 May 2010 18:59:37 UTC