On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 5/4/12 2:33 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > >> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Alan Stearns<stearns@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> I do not think this would necessarily be the case. Experiments and >>> >>> browser-specific features could still be added with a vendor prefix only. >>> We could mandate that the unprefixed version (aliased to the prefixed >>> version) could only come after the appropriate standards body had a >>> proposal in hand and agreed to work on it. >>> >> >> Isn't this essentially what the current process is supposed to be? >> > > The current process has a much higher bar for unprefixing than "Working > group agreed to work on this spec". A bar that allows a draft to be worked > on for years with multiple nearly-interoperable implementations in the > market, before prefixes can start being removed. I'm really torn on this. On the one hand, the current policy clearly has problem of unprefixing too late. On the other, looking at the latest flexbox spec, it wasn't until the preparations for last-call that a bunch of naming changes were made. As you said, working draft is too early and CR is too late. I can't think of a good point in the middle. Enters last call? That seems like a sort of silly point to choose. But I guess it's the point at which the editors believe it's actually stable. I don't have much of a sense of how long it takes in practice to go from last call to CR or if this would be any better than the current policy. Ojan
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 19:26:50 UTC