RE: vendor prefixes: co-cascading

>"feel free to implement anything that has a name, but don't promise anyone it won't change"
Content providers exert *significant* pressure that makes this completely untenable.

Promise doesn't have much to do with it.  People will author content with whatever rules or non-rules they feel like.  When something changes, they scream bloody murder and the UA vendors are stuck in a corner.

Issues like this are what force document modes and doctype to exist.

The philosophy in the quote is the "living specification" mindset which is an oxymoron.  Something non-static ("living") is essentially useless as a basis for implementation, as any attempt at implementation will never be correct because the criteria for behavior is a moving target.

Vendors are free to embrace that philosophy behind their own prefix (at their peril, IMO).  But applying that philosophy to un-prefixed properties isn't viable.

Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 14:21:29 UTC