On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoi...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's a theoretical problem only so far: in practive, since the > un-prefixed extension generally behaves exactly like the prefixed one, > websites have been good at trying getting both and using whatever they > get.
In other words, prefixing has no benefit. > However, it is not a bug that get to fix by ourselves: moving to stage > 3 requires WG approval. ... > That requires moving to stage 3. Requires WG approval. ... > We have to find common ground with other browser vendors. Do feel free > to join the WG mailing list (public_webgl@khronos) and try to convince > everyone, though you may want to check the archives first. In the case of CSS, no progress was made on getting rid of prefixes as long as implementers behaved as if the CSS WG has the power to set the prefixing policy that implementers must follow. The way to make progress was to just start, as an individual vendor, following the policy dbaron wrote. > I agree that excluding WebGL from the scope of this discussion is the > most likely useful course of action. OK. -- 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
