W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Property proxies / CSS setters

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:55:40 -0800
Message-ID: <4F3986DC.5060607@jumis.com>
To: Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com>
CC: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
I don't think it destroys the point of prefixes. They still exist when 
they reach the author.

It helps the author to toy around with things. It still keeps the 
very-good practice of having vendors use prefixes.

The point of using prefixes is to keep vendors from harming us authors.
As authors, we get a lot more rope to make mistakes with.

On 2/13/2012 4:38 AM, Paul Bakaus wrote:
> True, it destroys the point of prefixes  but the user willfully 
> decides to ignore the safe harbor of prefixing when using the feature. 
> This is the big difference  giving the authors control over their 
> choice of prefix vs. no prefix. In my honest opinion, this would 
> forever end the fight.
> Von: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org 
> <mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>>
> Antworten an: "robert@ocallahan.org <mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>" 
> <robert@ocallahan.org <mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>>
> Datum: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:48:16 -0800
> An: Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com <mailto:pbakaus@zynga.com>>
> Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com <mailto:smfr@me.com>>, "www-style@w3.org 
> <mailto:www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org 
> <mailto:www-style@w3.org>>, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com 
> <mailto:leaverou@gmail.com>>
> Betreff: Re: Property proxies / CSS setters
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Robert O'Callahan 
> <robert@ocallahan.org <mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>> wrote:
>     On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com
>     <mailto:pbakaus@zynga.com>> wrote:
>         Actually, I don't think so. My approach makes sure that the
>         good promises of vendor prefixes are kept  if a feature
>         breaks in a newer browser because of syntax changes, for
>         instance, and the removal of the vendor prefix has simply been
>         done through the proxy, it's crazy easy to simply fix it in
>         the client side css, at a single line in your code.
>     If authors were diligent about updating their CSS whenever browser
>     releases happen, most of our problems would go away. But that
>     doesn't happen, and it's not fair to expect them to.
> The other problem is that authors would use your feature (and similar 
> features) to include the unprefixed version of the property, as 
> "fallback" in case the prefixed versions go away, or for 
> currently-unknown browsers. Which is fine, but it destroys the point 
> of using prefixes in the first place.
> Rob
> -- 
> "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is 
> not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will 
> forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we 
> claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is 
> not in us." [1 John 1:8-10]
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 21:56:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:10 UTC