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

Re: wading into the Prefix morass...

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:19:23 -0800
Message-ID: <4F440A5B.8040904@jumis.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
On 2/21/2012 1:12 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> Any proposal with respect to vendor prefixes has to explain how it will
> aid standardization, development of standard features without prefixes.
> Or it would have to explain how we are better off without standards. I
> do not see either in your proposal.

A shared vendor prefix, like -css-* would let authors know immediately 
that at least two vendors have agreed on the semantic. That's generally 
the bar we try to meet with standardization: are there two independent 

There's a lot of overlap with -moz- and -webkit- these days.

I would like to see: -css-appearance, -css-transform, as a precursor to 
their final acceptance into the standard. And if things go really wrong, 
-css-x-b-transform, -css-x-c-transform, until they are right again.

Gives them an easy way to say yes, we are using identical CSS code, no 
room for human error. It gives authors a way to see that it's a -css- 
prefix, and not an obscure -moz- or -webkit- prefix.

Other than that, yes, standardization is great. It's just a tricky thing 
with CSS because you're in a real bind when implementations get CSS 
wrong. With scripting, there's a bit more room for error and fixes. With 
CSS, it's a real shame when things go wrong in the standard namespace.

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 21:19:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:12 UTC