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

Re: Proposal to enable -css- prefix on transform and appearance

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:26:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDXhT19Xg=SX_axxw4qAr_fZGuhaQqtFBf29zPXLrtr5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2012, at 8:38 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
>>> If at all possible, it'd be great to see Mozilla, Opera, Microsoft and
>>> Gapple pick up  -css- as a cross-vendor prefix:
>>> I'd like to see -css- supported in the next beta releases:
>>> The -css-transform family.
>>> -css-appearance: none (and I think auto, or inherit, or whatever it is).
>>> It requires only minimal effort on the vendor developers, it's a "vendor"
>>> prefix, so there are no rules, and we've got good consensus that appearance:
>>> none is here to stay, and transform will happen eventually.
>>> Thank you for your consideration,
>> What's the benefit of this?
> It was my suggestion for a vendor-neutral pre-release prefix "from by the CSS WG".  I have no strong feelings about whether -css, -draft, or something else is the best.
> It would allow vendors to implement, and more, evangelize, and web authors to use, a single prefixed version (quite often) and not have to replicate for every vendor.

We don't actually want that, as explained in other threads.  Having a
single shared prefix hurts our ability to experiment and for authors
to work around interop problems.

It seems particularly weird to do this for the specs that we're
attempting to push into unprefixed ASAP.

Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 20:26:50 UTC

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