Re: Forward compatibility and custom things

> CSS has a way to denote something nonstandard via
> a vendor prefix, and it looks pretty much the same
> whether that thing is a property, a pseudo-class,
> a pseudo-element, etc.  That's a huge win for
> authors I think.

+1

>I think that there is much sense in advising on a similar
> scheme that works everywhere in CSS for author
> provided custom things.

+1; that's what Tab is trying to do right now btw

> Secondarily, it would be even better in my opinion if one
> could logically draw sense of the relationship to existing
> vendor provided custom things.

I'm not sure vendor-prefixed things are "custom". They are just not 
standardized, which is different; remember when everyone pondered supporting 
some "-webkit-" properties?

Also:
- “Don’t use vendor prefixes, ‘-webkit-xyz’ is bad”
- “Please use custom things, ‘--abc-xyz’ is good.”

Associating the two looks odd to me.

That being said, I don't oppose to "--" as a prefix, it's still better than 
"var-", I just think it is not the best parallel one could draw. 

Received on Sunday, 16 March 2014 15:25:37 UTC