On Sep 7, 2012 5:04 PM, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > [Tab Atkins Jr.:] > > > > That's quite unrelated, though. The x- prefix is being phased out by the > > IETF because it was used like a vendor prefix, except for all vendors, > > which means that it got stuck on the web even more often than -webkit-. > > The proposed use of x- as the variables prefix is much closer to the use > > in Web Components, as Francois points out, where it's just a way to land- > > grab some cheap syntax space that we can reasonably promise we won't need > > to use in the future. > > > Precisely: it is unrelated hence the importance of not using a convention > that is already familiar to many as a vendor extension mechanism. In other > words, the main argument given for using x- at the time it was proposed was > that it looked like the IETF's X-. Given that this use-case is unrelated and > the IETF is phasing out X- I find the risk of confusion wholly unnecessary. > It's not like there is a shortage of other options. > I see your case, but I don't buy it. If people are going to draw a correlation, it isn't generally going to be to strict IETF standards (I would wager big money that the vast majority of css authors don't even know about IETF, much less their use of x). I think they are far more likely to draw a relation to <x- in html or data-* attributes. X is easy to understand as an extension or unknown quantity. All that said, I totally agree that if you see no problem with c- for custom or a- for author or u- for user (I think that is wrong, tab pointed out rightly I think that user means something else) or whatever. How about a compromise: xx-* :)
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 21:21:25 UTC