Thanks! Adam
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > > For now I changed the wording to remove the claim about an explicit request > by the CSS WG: > [[ > * Standards citizenship. The CSS Working Group is considering requesting that > implementors remove support for vendor prefixed featuresonce the > specifications of the features reach a certain level of maturity, typically > Candidate Recommendation. To be good citizens of these standards bodies, we > should make an effort to remove vendor prefixes, even if doing so would incur > a larger compatibility cost than we would otherwise prefer. > ]] > > since that is supported by the linked reference and matches what I have heard > from Apple's CSS WG reps. I also removed the reference to "many W3C Working > Groups" since I do not know of any others with any policy about prefixing. > > Feel free to change back if you find data to support a stronger claim. Also > perhaps the standards citizenship argument could be made without relying on > what specific standards bodies explicitly ask for, but I did not want to > rewrite it that much, > > Cheers, > Maciej > > On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:21 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> [+Tab] >> >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 21, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, "obligation" is probably too loaded a word. Here's some updated text: >>> >>> [[ >>> * Standards citizenship. Many W3C working groups, including the CSS >>> working group, request that implementors remove support for vendor >>> prefixed features once the specifications of the features reach a >>> certain level of maturity, typically Candidate Recommendation. To be >>> good citizens of these standards bodies, we should make an effort to >>> remove vendor prefixes, even if doing so would incur a larger >>> compatibility cost than we would otherwise prefer. >>> ]] >>> >>> >>> >>> Looks good. I checked the reference on the "request that implementors remove >>> support for vendor prefixed features" link, which points to >>> <http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/vendor-prefixes>. It looks like that document >>> does not exeactly support the claim made - it seems to contain proposed but >>> not yet agreed upon guidance: >>> >>> Simple straw proposal guidance. >>> >>> at least some of which is explicitly marked as disputed, e.g.: >>> >>> * SHOULD NOT retain older, incompatible implementations with >>> vendor-specific prefix >>> * disputed, see also Transitions section >>> >>> I'm not familiar with this document, so perhaps it's out of date. But in any >>> case, I suggest either softening the claim used to cite it to match what it >>> says, or using a better reference. >> >> Tab, do you know what's the most up-to-date document to reference from >> the CSS working group about how implementors should handle vendor >> prefixes? >> >> Adam >> >> >>> The impression I got is that the CSS WG is considering making a request that >>> implementors remove support for vendor prefixed features and perhaps even is >>> likely to, but hasn't quite done so yet. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Maciej >>> > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
