- From: Rik <coolcat_the_best@hotmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 12:46:39 +0200
- 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