On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On 14 Nov 2013, at 12:15 pm, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:
> >> The issue isn't where CSS (or whatever) defined them. It's that Safari
> doesn't follow that definition, and is unlikely to change. This is the
> reason for proposing a new name.
> >>
> >> (Yes, it's Apple's fault that we implemented something and didn't bring
> it to the standards groups with a clear description that the value was
> supposed to be constant)
> >
> > Blink *has* changed, and would like to keep the new definition.
>
> Ummm... we knew Blink has changed and that you would like to keep your new
> definition. This is exactly why Apple is suggesting another definition. Am
> I missing something?
>
> The alternatives here are:
>
> (a) Safari changes and breaks content
>
What content would this break? Can you point to concrete examples on the
web that would break?
- James
> (b) Mozilla and Chrome change and break content
> (c) We compromise on something new
>
> Note that content is already incompatible thanks to (a) and (b). That's
> why we agreed on (c).
>
> Dean
>
>
>
>
>