Re: Proposition to change the prefixing policy

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 05 May 2012 06:08:11 +0200, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>  On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Warning: long mail. If you want to skip the rationale, and just want the
>>> technical proposal, jump down to "==== Proposal ===="
>>>
>>>
>> I believe the policy is correct and should be retained. The correct way to
>> fix the issue is by moving specs to CR more quickly.
>>
>
> Even if we could speed up work on trendy specs by prioritizing better,
> I don't think we can go down from several years to a few months at most,
> which would be needed if we don't want prefixed properties to creep up
> too much in real content.
>

I agree.


> How do you think authors should use prefixes? Not at all in production
> content? Include the unprefixed property preventively alongside the
> prefixed ones, or not? Include the prefixes only of browsers they have
> tested, or all browsers that currently have the feature, or all
> browsers, even the ones that don't currently have the feature?


I know you're asking Glenn this, but I'll give my 2 cents. :) Whatever we
think is the right way to use or not used prefixed properties is mostly
irrelevant. Authors will use the properties if browsers ship them and will
use them in *all* the ways you list above. No amount of evangelism will
change that enough to fix the many current problems with vendor-prefixing.
I'd be surprised if we could get agreement, even within this working
group, on the right way for authors to use vendor-prefixed properties.

Ojan