- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 12:22:08 -0700
- To: Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Jon Ronnenberg >> <jon.ronnenberg@gmail.com> wrote: >>> MY PITCH >>> While Flexbox[5] is a wonderful thing, it isn't backwards compatible and >>> implementing a shim has proven very difficult[12]. In contrast a small >>> amendment to CSS3 Text module, namely "white-space: none;", is easy to shim >>> and fixes a lot of issues that web developers are facing today. >> >> Once again, you can't fix "X isn't supported" by proposing a new >> unsupported feature. That just produces a new, larger "X and Y aren't >> supported" problem. > > I think you're missing his point. He's arguing on the basis that Y is > much smaller than X, at least arguably a desirable feature even when X > is available, and, critically, _easy to polyfill_, which X is > decidedly not. Thus, if Y is added to the spec even just in an ED, > people can start using it _right now_, which they cannot do with X. > > I think you also grossly underestimate the amount of time before > Flexbox will be universal enough that people can rely on it. The CR > was in September 2012, so given the typical lifespan of old versions > of IE, the difficulty of polyfilling Flexbox, and the difficulty of > writing a stylesheet that gracefully degrades in the absence of > Flexbox, you should assume no sooner than 2017. * Old IEs doom every effort, no matter how small. * When polyfilling a tiny aspect like this, using the actual syntax of the full feature is merely a nicety, not a necessity. You've got all of JS at your command, it's trivial to invent your own thing and then use Flexbox if it exists, or do it manually if it doesn't. ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 19:22:55 UTC