Re: prefixed values(RE: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Paris F2F Monday Morning 2012-02-06: Administrivia, Vendor Prefixes, Property/Value Alias OM) from fantasai on 2012-02-16 (www-style@w3.org from February 2012)

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:31:35 +0100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <4F3CCCF7.6050001@inkedblade.net>

On 02/08/2012 02:41 PM, Brian Manthos wrote:
> Given the current design of CSS holistically, and backgrounds specifically, properties interact.  Property and value treatments w/r/t prefixes need to be consistent, or at least compatible.
>
> I've only skimmed the notes so far, but there's also the issue of "equivalent values" in "all variants" is not always constructible (much less necessarily desirable) given that grammars change as the spec evolves (read: features come and go).  So in many cases this requirement isn't even theoretically possible, much less practical.

Note also the resolution was listed for official CSS aliasing, not
for vendor prefixing, and thus your concerns don't really apply.

~fantasai

Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 16:05:06 UTC