On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > 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. > The WG could have thrown away that syntax and replaced it with alternative syntax that parsed incompatibly, possibly even using a different property name. That would not have immediately broken sites using the old syntax. Instead it would have created a latent compatibility problem: when browsers drop support for their prefixed version, these old pages will no longer work. The "future-proofing" the author intended will have failed. Browser vendors might have to respond by never dropping prefixed support. Again, prefixes wouldn't have helped in this situation. The exact same sequence of events could play out if browsers had shipped the property unprefixed from the start. 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]
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 22:30:04 UTC