Hi again, I too think so, but I thought it was a general rule to not make non-prefixed properties follow candidate recommendation strictly. If it is a general consensus that it is ok to accept prefixed keywords, then I'll happily change the implementation to do so :)
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Elliott Sprehn <espr...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Bruno Abinader <brunoabina...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi all :) >> >> As suggested by Ojan, I am writing a mail to you about my intention to >> implement all updated and missing text-decoration* properties from >> CSS3 spec (currently in development), named below: >> >> -webkit-text-decoration ( https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92000 ) >> CSS3 dev spec: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/#text-decoration >> Mozilla ref: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/text-decoration >> Status: Proposed patch / pending review > > > It seems weird to have a prefixed version of text-decoration instead of just > making text-decoration allow the new prefixed keywords. > > What's the reason for having a whole new prefixed property? > > > Making regular text-decoration accept prefixed keywords for the new/unstable > tuff sounds like a good approach to me. I too am curious why that is not > proposed. > > - Maciej > > -- Bruno de Oliveira Abinader _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev