- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:22:16 -0700
- To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Chris Coyier <chriscoyier@gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? In other > words, instead of: > > ::nth-last-pseudo(column, odd) > > It would be something like... > > ::-x-nth-last-pseudo(column, odd) > > I suppose see related threads for all of the rationale, but this > creates a nice author opt-in model which is clearly emulated at this > early phase -- shouldn't break when native are available even if there > are differences, etc... I don't understand what you are trying to get at here. Experimental things are vendor-prefixed as long as they're experiments. We don't give them a different *name* while they're experiments. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 19:23:03 UTC