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 <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: > [+Tab] > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Sep 21, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> 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 webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev