- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:51:24 -0400
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On 22/3/10 17:21, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > The previous big thread on this topic explained very clearly why a generic > prefix is a bad idea. > > 1) Before the syntax and behavior of a property is frozen, different > browsers' implementation of the property are likely to vary, often because > their implementations reflect different versions of the draft spec. Using a > common prefix in this situation is a bad idea. > 2) Once the syntax and behavior of a property is frozen, authors and > browsers should simply use the unprefixed version of the property. > > If there is a problem we need to solve here, it's that for some properties > there's a long gap between the syntax and behavior freezing and the spec > going into CR, at which time unprefixed implementations are officially > allowed. Fixing that requires a change in policy and/or process. I agree with that. If properties that are experimental, unstable and temporary cease to be seen as such by a large group of users, that suggests (but doesn't imply) that the definitions are being developed too slowly. In the particular case of 'border-radius', the blocking issue[1] is whether (and, if so, how) to specify specific color transitions in the corners of a two-color border. Maybe this isn't as important as we thought, maybe we are overlooking a simple way to circumvent the problem, but maybe also it is a real problem and we failed to explain it. [1] http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/120 Bert -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 18:51:53 UTC