- From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:10:09 +0100
- To: "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
David Singer: > On Feb 20, 2012, at 11:53 , Daniel Glazman wrote: > >> if we do that, will Apple remove such early prefixes from WebKit even if they are shipped and used in the wild? Without a VERY firm "yes", I will increase the problem only, not decrease it… > > I think if a vendor introduces an idea, that then transitions into a CSS WG item, they ought to recognizer their vendor prefix while it's theirs, and the CSS prefix once it goes to the W3C. I don't think they should be required to then drop *support* for the vendor prefix, but of course, I agree, it would be most helpful if they then *evangelized* the CSS prefix and 'ceased to mention' their old vendor prefixed version. Is that what you are asking? It probably answers the question he was asking – in the way he presumed. Vendor (prefix) lock-in comes from idea → implementation → release → proposal → standard which is a (simplified) scheme some players seems to favor, especially when they see early implementation (however imperfect) as an business advantage. The ideal open standard, W3C process, however, would be idea → proposal → implementation → standard → release ↖ draft ↙ The resulting actual process, currently, is more like a)↗ implementation ↘ idea ↑ release b)↘ proposal → draft ↙ Once you hit the “release” stage you* hardly can remove prefixes that exist at this point, whatever they may be called. *read: anyone who wants to keep or increase their market share.
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 21:10:38 UTC