- From: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:17:20 +0300
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
- Cc: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
10.12.2015, 21:48, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote: >> 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. > > They're not vendor prefixes anymore, tho, at least on these > properties. They've been implemented by other vendors, so they're > just aliases which happen to resemble the old vendor-prefix system. > That's the point. Using vendor-prefixed features instead of standard ones is a bad practice anyway, so advertising vendor-prefixed features in main specifications is probably not quite a good idea. I tend to agree with Dean, it would probably be more appropriate to place vendor-prefixed features in a separate spec instead of spreading them over multiple specs. If needed, it would probably be enough just to _reference_ the separate compatibility spec in those multiple specs that describe standard syntax. Even if it would be decided to place information about vendor-prefixed features directly in main specs, it would probably be useful to style corresponding sections correspondingly -- e.g. using a red-ish background with red border and with a noticeable warning that the section describes nonstandard syntax that should NOT be used on new sites.
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2015 20:17:57 UTC