- From: Mark Ayers <markthema3@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:41:43 -0800
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAMKWQ2W--FaepJUoNC0YQFbPSFXhfsPhi04EpEifAD4fLLfcsQ@mail.gmail.com>
I really like the -wd- -ed- etc etc etc prefixes, this *should* help MS keep their bug compatibility while allowing them to progress with the newer implementations. It would also help with multiple repetitions of the same thing with different prefixes, though I suppose it could potentially make that problem worse. On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > >> On 2/7/12 8:58 AM, Christoph Päper wrote: >> >>> dbaron: The more we can unprefix, perhaps the less we have this problem. >>>> tantek: One possible proposal is to only parse other vendors' prefixes >>>> in >>>> conjunction with parsing unprefixed. >>>> >>> >>> That’s a minimum requirement. Anything less should not even be >>> considered for discussion. >>> >> >> The only way to do that is to change the unprefixing policy of this >> working group and unprefix a whole bunch of things right now. >> > > i'm not sure if IPR issues have yet been discussed in this context, but i > believe we can't simply standardize currently prefixed properties without > first introducing them into scope of the WG according to W3C IPR practices > > of course, if the prefixed version matches (without modification) > preliminary specifications already developed within WG scope, then this > would not be a barrier > > please correct me if i have the wrong impression > >
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:46:14 UTC