- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 17:25:47 +0200
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Hi, css3-page in still in WD, so according to these it should be prefixed: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/vendor-prefixes http://www.w3.org/TR/css-2010/#experimental But what is there to prefix? @page {} was already in CSS 2.1 and should not be prefixed. I guess margin rules like @top-left {} should be prefixed, but no implementation that I know of does so. Are we (implementers) wrong on this one? css3-page makes many more properties apply in @page (where CSS 2.1 only had margin properties). However these properties are defined elsewhere, most of them in stable specs. I think they should not be prefixed but this is only my opinion. I can not find anything to support this idea. The module has two new properties: 'size' (in @page) an 'page' (on elements.) According to the links above these should be prefixed, but for these particular properties this seems particularly pointless: they both have a very simple syntax (compared eg. to gradients) and haven’t changed for years. In WeasyPrint I have the 'size' property prefixed as '-weasy-size'. Unless there are strong objections here I plan to un-prefix it in the next version. Likewise, 'page' is not implemented yet but when it is I plan not to prefix it. PS: I tried to add the Transitions/Transforms/Animations exception[1] to the wiki[2]. I could register but apparently I don’t have the privileges to edit the page. [1] http://www.w3.org/blog/CSS/2012/06/06/resolutions-40/ [2] http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/vendor-prefixes#specific-cases More generally, some emails in this list hinted that none of the published documents are quite up-to-date regarding the current WG consensus about prefixing. As a non-member implementer I’m a bit in the dark here. Regards, -- Simon Sapin
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 15:26:20 UTC