- From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 13:30:04 +0200
- To: "Rik" <coolcat_the_best@hotmail.com>, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Florian Rivoal" <florianr@opera.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
> 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. The main issue remains: blog posts, printed books and similar resources are static snapshots of a moment in the spec history. Most people use them, but few will "live update" to reflect changes in support, modify recommanded prefix. That means the code "copy-pasted" from those sources will not necessarily be in sync with what you would like to; old prefixes won't die easily. Also, this solution would lead to an important amount of per-property prefixes. It'll hurt parser performance, at some point. I'm pretty sure an intermediary approach exists between "all vendor-based" and "all version-based". Anyway, the best solution remains no prefix at all, as soon as possible.
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 11:30:38 UTC