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

Re: [css3-*] Review of functional syntax in CSS

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:51:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJQvAuc1_aSg_LKFX4QSK8Vdh757O_g6Mm6DFzcGfmcVzKs5CQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 4:01 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 4. Backwards compat should be preserved unless there's a very good
> reason otherwise

Are the proposed comma removals backwards-compatible in the sense that
prefixed properties would work with extra commas if unprefixed? (It
seems to me that wouldn't be the case.) Without that kind of
compatibility with what's deployed, I expected it to be very confusing
to authors if dropping prefixes needs to be couples with dropping
well-selected commas, too.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 08:52:02 UTC

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