- From: Mark Ayers <markthema3@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:55:52 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BANLkTinOuGw1akQnggm_T+VoFVXO66i+ug@mail.gmail.com>
Out of curiosity, what was the particular feature(s) that caused the problem? On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > We've had that sort of thing before, in the last 90s, and no one (at least > of the UA vendors I know) really wants to go back to that. > Thank you for explaining this. On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>wrote: > Suppose you use a not-ready-for-CR feature without prefix and some > “misbehaving” browser allows you to do so. All “behaving” browsers will > not. Your site starts out as “seeming compliant” (“look ma, no prefixes in > the markup”) even though it only works in that “seemingly cutting edge, but > actually misbehaving” browser. Now the spec changes and reaches CR. This > “now actually cutting edge” formerly misbehaving browser auto-updates to > match the CR spec – unprefixed before and after the conversion. Your site > breaks for customers that auto-update that browser, and remains working for > those that don’t. The spec gets blamed for changing. The browser gets > blamed for “breaking” you. Your site gets blamed for tormenting users. The > web as a whole gets a criticized for not having solved the core problem > after over a decade. Bad situation for all involved. >
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 22:56:20 UTC