- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 20:32:44 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAGN7qDBcfu9eO3Kg7cWKgq41HmkzPg7JkFJvpizAEeFO=hO++g@mail.gmail.com>
Why a vendor prefix? I think there are designers that care about this on all browser platforms. As an aside, this request seemed to originate from a user request to turn sub-pixel aliasing off for icon fonts. Couldn't you detect that a glyph is an icon and then turn off subpixel AA? I was under the impression that there were different categories of glyphs... On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:14 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 2013-07-17 14:57 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > > I would prefer this to be done without a vendor prefix, since the > > property will be implemented by multiple vendors. I don't want each > > vendor implementing it to have to use its own vendor prefix (adding > > to the burden for authors, and increasing the risk of more > > browser-specific content), nor do I want to introduce the precedent > > of one browser implementing another browser's prefixes (which > > increases the chance of baking those prefixes into the Web platform > > permanently, which is even uglier). > > Well, given the substantial negative feedback on the list about this > proposal, plus the lack of any positive feedback from other > implementors, I'm going to make the call that we're going to do this > with a vendor prefix, even though I really dislike adding new > platform features with vendor prefixes. > > (We're not the first vendor adding this particular feature with a > vendor prefix, though.) > > -David > > -- > 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 > 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 > >
Received on Friday, 26 July 2013 03:33:11 UTC