- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:29:06 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- cc: "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
On Mon, 21 May 2012, Karl Dubost wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Le 16 mai 2012 à 06:37, Linss, Peter a écrit :
>> Authors using experimental features also (IMO at least) have an obligation to update their content once the standard equivalent is available, or accept that their page will break.
>
> I understand the will, but this doesn't match what is happening in the
> Web *social* and *economic* infrastructure most of the time.
Yes, CSS prefixes are a social issue (but some rules can help).
> A middle size Web agency (20-100 persons), not saying it is always like
> this down there, but it is a pattern I have seen plenty of times in a
> few Web agencies.
[..]
> The client doesn't care about Web standards.
> The Web agency has no budget to care about Web standards.
> Things which are deployed are NOT fixed.
So the question is... what could be the incentive to have CSS authors to
update their pages?
One option is... planned obsolescence. If the vendor prefixes were timed
like:
--<vendor>-<year>-<property> (like -o-2011-transition )
_AND_ if vendors all agree to support only timed prefix for the matching
year, it would force to update every year those properties to the point
that they will be replaced by the std version. The drawback would be the
surge of work every new year's eve ;)
If planned obsolescence is not in place, as Karl said, there will be no
incentive to remove those once-experimental properties.
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 12:29:18 UTC