9590 2010-04-25 09:18:55 +0000 Consider "prefix--" instead of "_prefix-" as a pattern for proprietary extensions 2010-10-15 15:36:47 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified PC All RESOLVED WONTFIX NE P2 normal --- 1 mjs ian annevk dbaron former-z^corpan hsivonen ian james jonas julian.reschke mike mjs mounir public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking xn--mlform-iua public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 35243 0 mjs 2010-04-25 09:18:55 +0000 Consider "prefix--" instead of "_prefix-" as a pattern for proprietary extensions. I've been trying to convince people at Apple to use the naming pattern recommended by the standard for vendor extensions, and the sheer ugliness of "_webkit-" makes it an impossible sell. "webkit-" is more palatable, and in practice will never conflict with a future standard feature, but presumably we want something that can work for an arbitrary vendor and will never conflict with a future standard. So a perhaps less ugly possibility is "prefix--" (note double hyphen). 37514 1 ian 2010-08-16 22:13:26 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: Concurred with reporter's comments. 37515 2 contributor 2010-08-16 22:14:28 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r5307. Check-in comment: use vendor--feature instead of _vendor-feature since Apple engineers think underscores are ugly. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5306&to=5307 37541 3 ian 2010-08-17 04:08:02 +0000 dbaron brought up an interesting problem with this: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-August/027973.html ...so it might change again. 38628 4 zcorpan 2010-09-08 08:13:34 +0000 Another problem: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-August/028270.html 39415 5 xn--mlform-iua 2010-09-25 21:58:45 +0000 (1) That _vendor to some developer is ugly, should be considered an irrelevant issue (2) vendor--feature, in contrast to _vendor-feature, can also be used in element names: <vendor--element></vendor--element>. Whether that is an advantage or an disadvantage depends on the angle one looks at it from ... But regardless what HTML5 says, one _must assume_ that, sooner or later, vendors *will* make use of this syntax in elements as well as in attributes. (3) As justifcation for my conclusion in (2), take a look at vendor prefixes in CSS: In CSS, then -vendor-feature is *typically* used for properties - and this has no effect on other browsers's ability to read the non-vendor properties. *However*, -vendor-feature is *also* used in selectors, even in pseudeo-selectors and pseudo-elements (Mozilla has some of those and Webkti also has them in meda quieries). And when used in pseudo elements/selectors, then user agents from other vendors are required, per the CSS rules, to ignore the the entire selector - which is a feature that can be, and is used, used to target particular user agents. Thus, even if _vendor-feature is chosen for HTML5, vendors could still enable support for such elements, while other vendors would then be required to ignore such elements (per HTML5's parsing rules). (4) Both <_vendor-element> and <vendor--element> works in the XML serialization. (5) That _vendor--feature creates problems w.r.t. <!-- <i ven--dor > -->, could be considered a feature as well - if one wants to discourage use of this option. 39790 6 ian 2010-09-28 19:41:04 +0000 Maciej, are there any other syntaxes Apple would be willing to use? Maybe using a dot? vendor.attribute="" _vendor-attribute="" vendor_attribute="" Anyone got any other ideas? It has to be well-formed in XML, not clash with comment syntax, not clash with data-* and other features, and be something UAs are willing to use (otherwise what's the point). Mozilla currently uses the _vendor-attr syntax. 39802 7 zcorpan 2010-09-28 20:10:13 +0000 It was pointed out on IRC that the vendor.foo syntax needs escaping in Selectors. 39803 8 hober0 2010-09-28 20:12:25 +0000 > Anyone got any other ideas? It has to be well-formed in XML, not clash with > comment syntax, not clash with data-* and other features, and be something UAs > are willing to use (otherwise what's the point). How about x-vendor-attribute=""? * It's well-formed XML. * It doesn't clash with comment syntax, data-*, or other features. I can't speak to browser vendors' willingness to use it, but there's at least one precedent: WebOS's x-mojo-* attributes. 39845 9 ian 2010-09-28 23:56:40 +0000 mjs, dbaron: Would x-vendor-attr="" be acceptable? 39854 10 dbaron 2010-09-29 01:32:49 +0000 x-vendor-attr sounds fine to me 39859 11 jonas 2010-09-29 05:29:07 +0000 I'm not a huge fan of the x-vendor-function syntax, but if that's what everyone else prefers then I can live with it. However a few other alternatives to consider are: vendor_function_vendor_function vendor__function vendor-function- I think out of these I like the first one the most, though I guess the concern is that other specs might use that syntax and eventually we might want to bring those specs into HTML, a'la SVG? 39860 12 jonas 2010-09-29 05:30:40 +0000 Err.. don't know why my comment got munged. Here was the list I was going for: vendor_function_ vendor_function vendor__function vendor-function- 39861 13 jonas 2010-09-29 05:31:44 +0000 Arg, sorry, that wasn't it, the intended list was: vendor_function _vendor_function vendor__function vendor-function- 39862 14 mjs 2010-09-29 05:47:59 +0000 (In reply to comment #9) > mjs, dbaron: Would x-vendor-attr="" be acceptable? x-vendor-attr="" seems like the best suggestion to my tastes, out of those so far. I will briefly survey the folks who code on WebKit at Apple. 39915 15 hsivonen 2010-09-29 08:48:54 +0000 _vendor-attribute="" and x-vendor-attribute="" WFM. 40005 16 ian 2010-09-29 19:45:22 +0000 Should I just reserve anything starting with "x-" and anything containing an underscore, and recommend using either "x-vendor-feature" or "_vendor-feature"? Or would it be better to strongly recommend a specific syntax? (If the latter, I'll go with x-vendor-feature since it has the highest chance of being used.) 40007 17 annevk 2010-09-29 19:50:50 +0000 I think we should reserve everything apart from x-vendor-feature. 40020 18 jonas 2010-09-29 21:54:24 +0000 I would not pay attention to the mozilla _moz-foo syntax. I'm fairly certain that it's only used internally and that we never use it to enable features that authors might want. I.e. there is no reason for it to ever appear in markup that people put through a validator. In the long term our current uses will hopefully go away and instead use internal state flags rather than ones exposed in the DOM. 40024 19 ian 2010-09-29 22:37:48 +0000 I've reserved "x-*" and anything containing "_", but only recommended the use of "x-*". EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: see diff below Rationale: see the WHATWG posts cited above for why the original suggestion of "--" has been rejected. 40025 20 contributor 2010-09-29 22:38:27 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r5562. Check-in comment: Change how vendor extensions are marked up. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5561&to=5562