I'm strongly in favor of this, I actually even blogged about the subject a while back: http://blog.avd.io/posts/vendor-prefixes . :)
On Friday, 9 November 2012 09:43:45 UTC+2, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2012-11-08 1:44 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > >> If we consider a partial feature ready for use by Web developers, then > > >> we could ship the partial feature on the release channel without > > >> prefix. > > > > > > Hmm, well, a partial feature might be considered useful for web developers, > > > but still finishing the implementation may mean changing the way that the > > > partial implementation works later on, which is likely to break stuff that > > > rely on it. I'm not sure how you'd reconcile the two sides here. > > > > Do you have a concrete example from the past where all the following were > true: > > 1) Letting Web authors use a partial feature was considered useful. > > 2) The partial feature was shipped with prefix. > > 3) Had the partial feature been shipped without prefix, completing > > the feature would have caused worse breakage then unprefixing the > > feature. > > > > Or do you have a concrete example from the past where all the > > following were true: > > 1) Letting Web authors use a partial feature was considered useful. > > 2) The partial feature was shipped without prefix. > > 3) Completing the feature caused breakage that was worse than the > > breakage that would have been caused by shipping the partial feature > > with prefix and unprefixing the feature after completion. > > > > ? > > > > -- > > Henri Sivonen > > hsivo...@iki.fi > > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
