W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2011

RE: "-draftX-" prefix

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 23:47:14 +0000
To: 'Tab Atkins Jr.' <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E539856928412D7C350@TK5EX14MBXC218.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
± Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 2:57 PM
± * It doesn't seem to aid in preventing prefixes from being supported forever.  In 
± fact, it probably makes it worse.

Of course not. Supporting prefixes long-term depends only on amount of existing prefixed content (with any kind of prefixes). The only way to avoid supporting prefixes forever is to not use them to begin with.

I don't see how this can make it worse either, this is addressing a different problem.

± *  It allows authors to write only a single prefix, which is better than writing 3-4 
± prefixes.  However, the latter situation is rare (usually, properties stabilize before 
± more than 1 or 2 browsers have a prefixed impl).

Rare?? How do you define "rare"? That is exactly what designers are unhappy about, have you read any or the vendor-prefix articles lately?

An even bigger issue is that content authored for existing prefixed implementations won't work in new implementations until authors update content (and some content never changes). If there is content on the web with "-ms-grid-", implementing "-webkit-grid-" does nothing for supporting that content.

± * It does nothing to stop the pain of authors either writing the unprefixed version 
± speculatively (creating content that harms our ability to change the grammar before 
± CR), or never writing the unprefixed version (preventing browsers from removing 
± support for the prefixed version).
± So, it doesn't seem like we need complicated solutions for this stuff.
± We just need to ensure that specs actually reach CR in a timely manner when they're 
± ready for it.

You are not saying that directly but it looks like you are suggesting that specs have to be in CR before first implementations, and there are no syntax changes in specs based on implementation feedback. That's wishful thinking. You are editing flexbox spec for two years now -- is it ready for unprefixed implementation? I don't think so.

It would be great to speed up CSS spec process, I am all for that, but claiming that it can quickly become so fast as to remove the need for prefixed implementation is just denial.


Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 23:47:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:08 UTC