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: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 05:14:02 +1100
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <57153F94-5BD6-4FF5-8441-4DA96DA1DD3C@apple.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>

> On 11 Dec 2015, at 02:37, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thursday 2015-12-10 10:26 +1100, Dean Jackson wrote:
>>> On 10 Dec 2015, at 10:17, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It would be listed as an "implementors MUST, authors MUST NOT" sort of
>>> thing.  Pretending they don't exist isn't helping existing
>>> implementors.
>> 
>> I never suggested that we should pretend they don’t exist. I said I
>> don’t want them in the main specification - they are fine in the
>> compatibility specification. We could even have a note in the main
>> specification reminding these implementors that there are
>> compatibility issues and telling them where to look. The compatibility
>> spec could then have the big “NOTHING TO SEE HERE IF YOU’RE
>> NOT AN IMPLEMENTOR” warning.
> 
> I don't see why you want this.
> 
> There are lots of features that are part of the Web that started off
> as browser-specific features, e.g., .innerHTML.  We don't move them
> off to a separate specification just because they started off as
> browser-specific features.
> 
> A bunch of -webkit-prefixed properties and values are now part of
> the Web, and should be specified as such.

It’s the vendor prefix that I don’t want in a main specification, especially
when there is now a standard deployed solution without the prefix.
I’m not denying their place in the Web.

To me, these properties are a historical accident which happened
due to the Working Group policy and explosive growth in WebKit
browsers on a new platform. In retrospect the WG has decided
the policy was a bad idea. The problem is that other browsers
were forced to implement them for compatibility.

It seems there most people want to put them in the same
specification as the final properties, so I’m not going to argue
any more. I would just ask that it be extremely clear that
these should not be used by authors.

Dean (who thinks it’s kind of weird that he’s the one against
WebKit’s name getting plastered on W3C specifications,
but would have made the same argument if the properties had
come from another vendor)
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2015 18:14:41 UTC

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