- From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:19:44 +0100
- To: "Brian Manthos" <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:49:08 +0100, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>>> expanded grammar
>> Those are totally OK since the changes are backwards compatible.
> Incorrect. While authoring conventions can make it effectively
> backwards compatible, it’s not strictly backwards compatible.
>
> Example:
> div {
> transition-timing-function: ease-in;
> transition-timing-function: step-start;
> }
>
> Browser A unprefixes against the current WD. Browser A applies
> “ease-in”.
>
> Browser B unprefixes against the current ED. Browser B applies
> “step-start”.
>
> Interoperability failure.
That's not really much different than e.g.
div {
background: white;
background: url(foo.png), lightblue;
}
Browser A implements the current level 2 syntax; applies "white".
Browser B implements the current level 3 syntax; applies "url(foo.png),
lightblue".
--
Øyvind Stenhaug
Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 12:20:23 UTC