Re: vendor prefixes: co-cascading

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <> wrote:
> I have an idea for vendor prefixes. I don’t know if this is new or really
> old (so much is written about it…), let me just give it a try. I’ll try to
> make it short.
> 1.       Browsers should support *both* prefixed and unprefixed versions of
> new properties.
> 2.       It is OK to support unprefixed properties as soon as there is at
> least a reasonably detailed spec. First WD should be fine.
> 3.       Prefixed and unprefixed versions of same property cascade together:
> when both are specified, the last one (or most specific one) wins, as if it
> was same property.
> 4.       Vendors make their own decisions on when and how to change, retain
> or abandon their proprietary properties. Timeframes and criteria for these
> changes should not be much different from current practice.
> 5.       Vendors are expected to regularly update the syntax and behavior of
> unprefixed properties. These can be considered “W3C experimental” until spec
> is very stable.
> 6.       Authors have a choice to favor prefixed or unprefixed properties,
> based on spec and implementation status and purpose of the content.

We already co-cascade, except that the unprefixed version always wins.
 What benefit does this change bring?  If you want to support
down-level clients who don't yet understand the unprefixed version,
that happens automatically if you just use both the prefixed and
unprefixed property.


Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 16:04:57 UTC