Re: Unprefixing CSS properties

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Google's Alex Russell just posted on this topic:
> http://infrequently.org/2011/11/vendor-prefixes-are-a-rousing-success/
>
> He makes some good points. Problems with border-radius and box-shadow
> might never have been found and fixed and improved upon in time, if we had
> not started trying to use it in production Web sites.
>

Authors are taught to set the same values they're using for prefixed
properties for the unprefixed version as well, to "future proof" their
production sites. Such usage constrains browser implementers, and by
extension the WG, to make sure the spec evolves in a way that doesn't break
those sites.

For example, once box-shadow:<length> <length> <length> <length> was
deployed prefixed in browsers, and authors had started "future proofing"
their sites by specifying it unprefixed as well, I don't think the WG could
have changed the spec to make that syntax mean something significantly
different.

We can fervently desire that authors didn't behave this way. We can ask
them to stop behaving this way. But we have to deal with the way they
actually do behave.

Rob
-- 
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not
in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us
our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not
sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us." [1 John
1:8-10]