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

Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> I am confused. Very confused.
> 
> Two months ago, you stated here [1] that you wanted 
> the following to "never happen again":
> 
>    -moz-border-radius: 5px;
>    -webkit-border-radius: 5px;
>    -o-border-radius: 5px;
>    -ms-border-radius: 5px;
>    border-radius: 5px;
> 
> But now, you are implicitly asking for this:
> 
>   #foo::-moz-selection, 
>   #foo::-ms-selection, 
>   #foo::-webkit-selection,
>   #foo::-o-selection,
>   #foo::selection {
> 	....
>   } 
> 
> So either these two positions are compatible and I'd like to
> understand how. Or you've changed your mind and I'd like to
> understand why. 
> 
> Also two months ago, you were very enthusiastic about our
> implementing ::selection [2]. It was as unprefixed then as 
> it is now. What happened ? Is it because of the recent IE 
> Mobile incident ? As you are the one who informed the mailing
> list that this was pulled [3] the same day the issue was raised, 
> I trust a perceived lack of caring is not the concern here ?
> 
> Regarding that particular issue, I think the proper course of
> action is to try and standardize a property that is already 
> very widespread on the web. May I suggest adding this to our 
> agenda ?


It took until IE8 before :active did not behave like:focus as it did
in IE7 or earlier [1]. This means that :active [2] was a standardized
'dynamic pseudo class' that was not interoperable for over 10 years.

So the argument concerning vendor prefixes for me is pitiful. I would 
suggest that ::selection is worked on quickly and also consider in the 
process why we have ::selection instead of :selection?


1. <http://css-class.com/test/css/selectors/pseudo-class-active-focus.htm>
2. <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1/#pseudo-classes-and-pseudo-elements>




-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo

Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 06:05:04 UTC