W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Proposition to change the prefixing policy

From: Rik <coolcat_the_best@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 12:46:39 +0200
Message-ID: <SNT132-ds21A3727CF326AB6CA3F11ACF100@phx.gbl>
To: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Florian Rivoal" <florianr@opera.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
-----Original message----- 
From: Sylvain Galineau
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:10 AM
To: Florian Rivoal ; www-style@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposition to change the prefixing policy

[Florian Rivoal:]
>>> 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.
> I also find this author-unfriendly; having to cope with 4 vendor prefixes
> is painful enough without having to keep up with both 1) which draft said
> what and 2) which browsers support which draft(s).

Again, I state that authors should use the newest draft (or the unprefixed
version once it is a CR). The older drafts only should be supported to
prevent older websites from breaking. Older drafts can be used if the newer
draft is not fully supported by all browsers. Everyone can look on a still
to be made website to see which draft is supported.

it should look a bit like http://caniuse.com/, but then with each draft 
vertically and the browsers horizontally.

This way of prefixing could probably not be implemented until the next 
browserversion comes out. When it does it supports the older drafts, so it 
isn't needed to show at which browserversion it is supported, because all 
drafts would be supported by the newest browser.
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 10:47:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:16 UTC