W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

RE: CSS vendor extension issues

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:29:26 -0700
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AC36BD4@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
OK, so there wasn't an agreed on transition plan --  http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/vendor-prefixes is very tentative and I don't think the plan in it works in the use case we have, where a feature has been deployed widely enough that it is de-facto desirable

 If the browsers that knew the unprefixed versions implemented ; the transition plan requires a "flag day" where everyone switches.

Of the rules:
If you are implementing a feature which is only defined in a Working Draft (WD, including Last Call LCWD and Editor’s Draft ED), your implementation:

> SHOULD (per CSS-snapshot-2010) use a vendor-specific prefix for the implementation of the feature 
I'm with Tantek, MUST would be better.

> MUST NOT support an unprefixed version of the feature
- This is the bad part. Content-providers can't transition easily to unprefixed as long as there are deployed browsers that followed this rule, which would be likely.   

I think it would be better to encourage vendors to support both prefixed and unprefixed versions, and let content creators decide whether they really want to specifically call out this particular vendor's issue, or bet that the standard winds up to be compatible enough.

> MUST NOT support a prefix specific to a third party for the feature

Why is this MUST NOT? What problem does avoiding this solve? You shouldn't support someone else's vendor prefix unless you match their behavior. If you do, what's wrong with it?

> MAY use a prefix specific to the CSS WG for the feature, if one is ever introduced, e.g. -css- or -csswg- 
>> disputed, could include level, e.g. -css4-

I don't know what "disputed" means here for sure... a feature in the policy that was disputed?  Did this ever happen?

>> MAY use a prefix specific to the W3C for the feature, if one is ever introduced, e.g. -w3- or -w3c-
> Disputed

I suppose this never happened? Either?

>> MAY use a generic draft prefix, if one is ever introduced, e.g. -draft-, -wd-, -lc- or -ed-
> disputed, could be versioned

I suppose this didn't happen either?

Received on Friday, 27 April 2012 15:29:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:44 UTC