Re: Proposition to change the prefixing policy

On Sat, 05 May 2012 02:32:51 +0200, Rik Schaaf  
<coolcat_the_best@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I agree on the problems the current prefixes have, but in stead of  
> browser prefixes, woulden't it be better to use draft prefixes like  
> -beta1-flexbox or maybe -23july2009-flexbox? (which I think is not as  
> good as beta1)

This idea has been floated around for a while, but I am not a fan of it.

Most importantly, it wouldn't be very different from what we have now
in some crucial aspects.

Even though the prefixes would be less branded than they are now,
you'd still have just the same problem with a lot of content accumulating
for the prefix that corresponds to the earliest implementation or the
most popular browser. The browser(s) supporting that particular prefix
would have the same difficulty about dropping support for then when they
get the unprefixed properties, and the browsers that don't support it
would be just as tempted to start supporting that old draft as they now
are to support the other vendor's prefix.

On top of that, early implementations often don't follow drafts that
closely, and authors don't read them much. So authors writing -draft1-foo
when only browser X implement it would be asking for browser X's behavior
regardless of whether it conforms to draft1 or not.

This means that draft prefixes would just be vendor prefixes in disguise.
Overall, I think this wouldn't really solve anything.

  - Florian

Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 09:47:07 UTC