- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:06:50 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
Le 07/08/12 20:52, Brian Kardell a écrit : > I love that this is available in JS, a few of us have been proposing > that this is an excellent way to get things rolling, etc... > > However, even in another thread today we were discussing prefixing, > forward compatibility, etc. and I feel like suggesting that this would > be even better if it did not try to literally polyfill something in > the native space which may or may not be implemented in the future > with similar/partial APIs or differences. Does anyone else think that > it might be better to prefix the experimental pseudos? Experimental pseudos are prefixed by all browser vendors. Adobe's JS code is a more a proof of concept than code that should be used in production environments, and that code is, to the best extent, browser-agnostic. That's why the prototype has no prefixes for the proposed new pseudos. </Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 19:07:17 UTC