- From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 00:14:11 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
> 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. I don't think the flexbox case breaks my proposal in anyway. The very early spec used display:box, which was later changed. Property names were changed as well. But nothing would have prevented us from doing the same in an unprefixed-aliased-with-prefixed situation. In a blog post not too long ago[1], Paul Irish looked into whether not having prefixes would have prevented a number of recent css things from evolving the way they did, and concludes that it would have been fine. Under my proposal, the same is true, with the added benefits that authors can use the aliased prefixed version to work around browser bugs they run into. [1] http://paulirish.com/2012/vendor-prefixes-are-not-developer-friendly/#h.jruvgsvd5z3c
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 22:09:31 UTC