On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 19:12 -0700, Ojan Vafai wrote: > > Since we're throwing proposals out there... > > > > I'd rather we do the same as http headers. Any experimental feature gets > an > > x-prefix instead of a vendor prefix. > > How does that work if two different browsers have different value-spaces > for the same property? This seems entirely likely - e.g. they implement > different drafts, or invent something independently. Good question. These are the sorts of things that would be more difficult for both browser vendors and web developers. They would have to work around it by applying different CSS either through UA sniffing or setting the CSS with javascript (e.g. via the style property or via the CSSOM). Alternately, they can just avoid using the feature until it's been unprefixed and standardized. These are experimental features after all. It's OK for web developers to have a difficult time using them in rare cases. Different value-spaces for the same property is rare enough that it's not worth the enormous costs of vendor-prefixing just to avoid this issue. Any feature that gets sufficient marketshare can't be killed just because it happens to have a vendor-prefix. Either we don't ship any prefixed properties or we live with getting stuck with the ones that gain sufficient marketshare. Getting specs to CR faster would somewhat alleviate the problem, but it's a race against web developers adopting the feature in question. OjanReceived on Saturday, 5 May 2012 05:03:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:14 UTC