- From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 11:17:28 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Sat, 05 May 2012 15:13:51 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 5/5/12 1:20 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote: >> How do you think authors should use prefixes? Not at all in production >> content? > > Yes. I don't think this can work, nor that we should go that way 1) Can't work Unless we want to pretend that the properties we are introducing don't solve any problem, make possible things easier and impossible things possible: * If most browsers don't ship prefixed properties in production builds, there is a huge competitive advantage to be gained for one browser to break the rule, which would provide a very strong intensive to every other browser to break it as well. * Similarly, If most authors refrain from using prefixed properties, there is a huge there is also a strong competitive advantage to be gained for authors who do. Taken together, these two mean that we are pretty much guaranteed to have most/all browsers shipping experimental properties in production builds, and most/all authors making use of them 2) Shouldn't do it: Even if it could be made it work, it would still be a bad idea. The web doesn't exist in a vacuum, and needs to compete with other things. If the web technologies fall short of what people want to do with them, other things will be used. Flash's success for many years is largely explained by gaps in the w3c technological stack, and its recent fading out by these same gaps being filled. Similarly, many things are made as apps when they can't be made well enough as web sites. Refraining from deploying and using work-in-progress w3c technologies would strengthen the appeal of these closed alternatives, which is in no way good for the web. - Florian
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 09:17:59 UTC