- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 00:38:48 -0800
- To: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
- Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/2/12 23:56, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> >> There is a ton of usage of the unprefixed version already, and I bet >> much of it doesn't use commas since it's just copied and pasted from >> whatever worked in Webkit. >> >> We don't have the freedom to change the unprefixed syntax in >> incompatible ways. > > Then why did we change the gradient syntax in incompatible ways? How is that > different? > > And what's the point of WD and prefixes if backwards compatibility is that > big an issue even in that case? If nothing can change in transforms any > more, why doesn't it move to CR? > > There is a recent thread on this list by Tab & fantasai about review of > functional notation in CSS, pretty much everything suggested there would > also break backwards compatiblity in incompatible ways just as much. We could change gradient syntax, honestly, because I *kept changing it*. It never got to stabilize, and browsers implemented it at various points, so everyone was somewhat different *anyway*. Prefixes *generally* protect us from back-compat issues - that's the whole point of them. Unfortunately, Transforms (along with Transitions and Animations) have spent *way* too long in WD. It should have been a CR at least a year ago, if it had been editted actively. At this point, its syntax is in far too wide of use to be changed without very good reason. I stand by what I argued before - we use commas to separate lists when there is ambiguity, otherwise we just comma-separate. Transforms, so far at least, are totally unambiguous without commas. As well, as Dean points out, there are several places that may want to take a "list of transforms", and if they're comma-separated it'll be harder to include them (we'd need to do something like wrap them in another function). ~TJ
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 09:05:19 UTC