- From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:31:39 +1100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-id: <570410F3-AF17-44F3-B993-B57B186CA84C@apple.com>
> On 10 Dec 2015, at 10:21, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >> FWIW, I realise Servo exists. I wasn’t trying to suggest that it shouldn’t >> be counted. I should have said that it is extremely unlikely that a >> starting-from-scratch implementation will only consider the canonical >> W3C specifications and pretend everything else doesn't exist. > > I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Are you saying that new > implementations should be forced to take compat-pain to see what > undocumented things they need to support, and then reverse-engineer > existing implementations? If so, I strongly disagree. Again, all I’m saying is that I think they belong in a compatibility specification and not in the main specifications. > >> As for the prefixed properties, it’s not clear to me what criteria is >> necessary for it to be considered essential enough to document. >> e.g. -moz-column-count or -moz-animation. > > It appears to be "another major browser was forced to implement it due > to sufficient compat pain". We (Chrome) clearly don't care about > whatever tiny fraction of pages use only -moz-animation; they're > either FF tech demos, or practically non-existent. Does Servo implementing -moz properties count?
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2015 23:32:13 UTC