- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:36:46 -0400
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > > [François REMY:] >> If you correctly remember, I was proposing the 'x' prefix beforehand but >>Sylvain said he didn't like it, which is why I did all this research in >>first place. If we can agree on the 'x' prefix, I would not mind at all. >> > That someone does not like something is irrelevant; why they don't is all > that matters. In this case, the x- prefixed was modeled after the IETF's > X- prefix which the IETF is phasing out. I don't think we should use > patterns others are getting rid of for good reasons, so I objected. Sylvain, can you explain a little more why you feel this way? All of the prefixes being discussed would work the same way. People are familiar with x-, it's short, in this case - it kind of makes sense. I experience a little dissonance in my head with the idea that if we called it c-* that would be fine, but x-* is somehow problematic. It looks very likely like we will wind up with <x-* tags in HTML now after much back and forth as well. I'm not pressing hard for it myself, pick any letter you want if that discussion is going to hold things up - just asking whether there is a really good reason you can explain to discount x-*?
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 15:37:15 UTC