W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2015

Re: [lots] -webkit prefixed properties and values

From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:15:55 +1100
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <BD4151B5-7A5E-44BA-8121-4013D9216ED9@apple.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

> On 10 Dec 2015, at 08:19, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Per the Compat Spec <https://compat.spec.whatwg.org/>, there's a
> decent-sized list of CSS at-rules, values, and properties that need to
> be supported with a -webkit- prefix in order to be web-compatible:
> <https://compat.spec.whatwg.org/#css-compat-section>.
> 
> Since implementors have to support these in order to realistically
> support web content, they should be listed alongside the features in
> the relevant specs (rather than sidelined into an easy-to-miss errata
> document like they currently are).

I disagree. The existing implementors (obviously) know about
these properties. New implementors are unlikely to start from
scratch. And even if they do, the number of new implementors
that appear each year can be rounded to about zero.

Honestly, I don’t think it’s worth advertising these properties
any more than they currently are. The sooner we stop talking
about them, the sooner we can remove support (even if that
is many years away).

> 
> I'm planning to do this for all the specs I control.  Would others
> please do the same?  The specs in question are:
> 
> * Images

I assume here you’d have to describe the legacy gradient
syntax that WebKit implemented before the specification
changed? This is another example of why I think they
shouldn’t be in the primary specification: I don’t want any
Web authors discovering them. The specification should
only talk about the correct way of doing things. The compatibility
specification seems like the right place for old/incorrect
or deprecated stuff.

Dean

> * Mediaqueries
> * Animations
> * Transitions
> * Backgrounds & Borders
> * UI
> * Transforms
> 
> Alternately, I'm happy to add the relevant sections to those specs.
> If you'd like to wait and see what wording I come up with in my own
> specs before approving me to mess with yours, that's fine too.
> 
> (The plan right now is to add a "Legacy Compatibility" appendix
> defining these things.)
> 
> ~TJ
> 
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2015 22:16:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:59 UTC