- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 11:20:09 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Robert O'Callahan" <rocallahan@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 18, 2011, at 11:09 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>> You presented it as a change you were leaning towards making, and as though there would be no problems with making such a radical change now. That's biased. >> >> There is no real problem. All current implementations are >> experimental by definition. If pages break, they should be >> maintained. Keeping people aware that prefixed stuff may break is a >> good thing. ^_^ > > Maintained how? I don't mind maintaining the CSS in my site when there are changes to the experimental properties and values. But the only thing I can do once this change is made in a UA is to remove all instances of linear-gradient from my site for that UA, and then wait a year or more for the people who use the older version to drop to inconsequential numbers. That's why, as I mentioned later in the email you're quoting, browsers are free to keep their current prefixed impls stable and only make the switch when they drop the prefix. I believe Firefox has this as a general policy, for example, which is why they still use an older gradient syntax that allowed an explicit starting position for linear gradients. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 18:20:56 UTC