![]() Proposed (strawman) policy for experimental CSS features in Gecko Support that content shouldn't affect the decisions we make for the ![]() Hand, we're talking about content that doesn't need to work acrossīrowser engines, then we're not talking about the Web, and what we do to It needs to be shipped across browser engines. The flip side that if the Web platform has a critical need for this newįeature, shipping it in only one browser engine isn't actually going to Has a critical need for this feature immediately. Might need to add features to the Web because we feel the Web platform (I'd like to say a little more about (3) here: some would argue that we possibly (though I'd prefer not) based on other factors Now different if we start not shipping, or not exposing to WebĬontent, things that we consider experimental)ģ. whether other major browser engines have implemented them (this is whether other major browser engines have shipped themĢ. That we want to think separately about what the criteria should beįor making features non-experimental based on:ġ. I'm a little moreĪttached to (though still also not entirely sure about) the approach I'm not strongly attached to the particular rules I propose here inįact I think some of them may be too loose. Rules to the limit to try to force certain technologies on others). With the results if they did (even if, say, they want to push the I think it's important that we come up with a policy that we'dĮncourage other browser vendors to adopt as well, and be comfortable Standards body (rather than implementing what they've proposed and Some aspects should be change, we should implement it with theĬhanges that we want until we can come to an agreement in a That if we like most of what another vendor has proposed but believe I see this as a piece of a larger solution for how we should I agree with him that we need a solution that leads us to prefixesīelow I've written a draft of a proposal that I think will help with Support at least one of the prefixed versions Version, and means that any future browsers will have to (b) authors don't write the unprefixed version, which preventsīrowsers from later removing support for the unprefixed Pollution that prefixes are designed to prevent, or (a) authors write the unprefixed version and cause the namespace The need to implement other vendors' prefixes because ofĬontent written specifically for that vendor (b) authors write for only one vendor and implementations feel (a) authors have to deal with the pain of writing things The result of things not moving quickly enough to being unprefixed): Widespread use of vendor-prefixed CSS on the Web (which in turn is In particular, there have lately been problems resulting from that they make vendor-specific styles easily noticeable within a that they prevent vendor experiments from using up the namespaceĢ. There's been a lot of discussion lately about vendor prefixes in CSS.ġ.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |