- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:40:15 -0800
- To: "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
>> I can't tell what's new about it. Having one prefix such as -w3c- or draft >> has been discussed a few times [1]. >> >> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Mar/0317.html >> > > The only bit of information I see in that thread that's truly important is that RoC would veto it. > Well, I think he sets up a false argument. His issues can be addressed: > 1) Before the syntax and behavior of a property is frozen, different > browsers' implementation of the property are likely to vary, often because > their implementations reflect different versions of the draft spec. Using a > common prefix in this situation is a bad idea. 1. if they vary because they intended to implement the same thing, and failed, those are known as bugs and should be filed against the browsers. Anyway, authors know that they are using an experimental feature, and that implementations might not be perfect. 2. if the spec. changes significantly, then the experimental shared prefix also needs to change, obviously. > 2) Once the syntax and behavior of a property is frozen, authors and > browsers should simply use the unprefixed version of the property. No opposition to that. But that's not where we are. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 18:41:20 UTC