RE: Proposition to change the prefixing policy


[Florian Rivoal:]
> 
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 16:03:24 +0200, Sylvain Galineau
> <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> > While I suspect it may be too time-consuming, I wonder if it would be
> > helpful to do a what-if against a couple of recent modules: what if we
> > had followed Florian's proposal and unprefixed flexbox or gradients or
> > transitions at a much earlier point in time? What changes would have
> > been hard or impossible to make in a backward-compatible manner? What
> > solutions would we have come up with instead?
> > How good/bad would the result be?
> 
> Even if the study is not very deep, Paul Irish did something akin to it on
> his blog, considering what would have happened if there were no prefixes
> at all, not even the aliased ones I propose:
> 
> http://paulirish.com/2012/vendor-prefixes-are-not-developer-

> friendly/#h.jruvgsvd5z3c
> 
> His conclusion is that it would have been alright.
> 
> I am quite confident that my solution would work out fine (otherwise I
> would not have proposed it), but I definitely welcome trying to spend some
> time looking at how it would concretely have impacted the development of a
> number of CSS3 modules.
> 
I love Paul but I don't really consider this a 'study', nor is it quite what I 
have in mind. What I suggest is that we pick a point on, say, gradient's of 
flexbox's timeline after which implementations would have supported an unprefixed 
version of the features. Then see what subsequent changes we would have handled 
differently, or not at all e.g. I suspect we wouldn't have renamed things as late 
as we did in some cases.

Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 07:16:33 UTC