Re: vendor prefixes: co-cascading

2011-11-18 11:38 EEST: Henri Sivonen:
> I think changes that don't change the grammar but change the semantics
> (e.g. changing what percentages refer to) simply should not be made
> after the feature has been adopted widely enough that the change would
> break too much existing content. Maybe such a constraint would leave
> an occasional unideal feature in the standard but it's better than
> keeping the standard pure while a parallel prefixed less well
> documented group of de facto standards grows up on the side.

It is possible to change semantics without using prefixes, too. Just
include a grammar change with any "semantic only" change. If you
*really* think that prefixes are a good way, something like this should
not look too bad for you:

   feature: value1 value2; /* first draft */
   feature: v2 value2 value1; /* second draft, different semantics */

The "v2" in the second draft could be even verbatim. Put version numbers
in the value if you really really want to version stuff. I'd much prefer
the style Henri suggested in his original blog post: stop pretending
that features that are used in the wild can be modified at will because
"they are prefixed as experimental".


Received on Monday, 21 November 2011 14:12:32 UTC