- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:30:16 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@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 3:22 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 This is a very early experiment indeed :) I don't understand what you mean by this particular distinction either Tab... can you explain? How is turning nth-last-pseduo into -x-nth-last-pseudo any different in terms of naming than, for example -moz-any, which not even be called "any" in the end (it's "matches" in Selectors level 4)? In other words - why do you stress something about giving them a different name above?
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 19:30:45 UTC