- From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:35:47 -0800
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANMdWTvP4gJtFVaT1r5xsj8faLmpFda+UhXrOqZ0jCXQsgvJng@mail.gmail.com>
Maybe I'm misreading that thread. As I read it, the conclusion is that specs still need to go to CR before the features in them can be unprefixed, they just don't need to go to REC. Did I read it incorrectly? Stated differently, I read it as saying the following: When we get to a state that some features are CR-ready and others are not, we should strip the non-CR-ready features and put them in the next version of that module and bring the CR-ready features to CR. That seems very different to me than marking individual features as stable. Mainly, it's a ton of busy work. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>wrote: > We’ve been here before.**** > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Aug/0473.html**** > > ** ** > > -Brian**** > > ** ** > > *From:* ojan@google.com [mailto:ojan@google.com] *On Behalf Of *Ojan Vafai > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2011 1:27 PM > *To:* robert@ocallahan.org > *Cc:* Brian Manthos; Henri Sivonen; www-style@w3.org > > *Subject:* Re: Unprefixing CSS properties**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > wrote:**** > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> > wrote:**** > > IMO, that's an argument for saying there is a more advanced stage than WD > that includes "grammar is stable, only edge cases of behavior remain". Is > that stage CR? If yes, then the current system supports your suggestion. > If that stage is not CR, perhaps something in between WD and CR should be > considered -- and should be considered "unprefixable".**** > > ** ** > > My proposal is essentially the latter: an "unprefixable" stage between WD > and CR, which can be applied to individual properties in a spec, plus a > proposal to move a particular set of properties to that stage immediately. > Please reconsider it in that light :-).**** > > ** ** > > I support adding a way to mark specific properties or parts of CSS specs > as stable (and thus unprefixable). The whatwg HTML spec does this. It makes > sense to me to do this across all W3C specs. Once all the parts of the spec > are marked stable, then the draft can effectively go to CR.**** > > ** ** > > I would like the annotations to be in the spec itself if possible. **** >
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:36:41 UTC