Me too. Please don't just remove the prefix - we need a period of time where we
support both prefixed and unprefixed.
Dean
On 12/10/2012, at 6:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> I agree with this position as well. It seems good to have a transition period
> and to gather some data.
>
> -
I agree with this position as well. It seems good to have a transition period
and to gather some data.
- Maciej
On Oct 11, 2012, at 9:59 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> I agree with what Adam wrote in
> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99116#c5. Even if a lot of sites
> will magically fa
I agree with what Adam wrote in
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99116#c5. Even if a lot of sites
will magically failover to the unprefixed API, we can't know for sure that
this change won't break sites. We need to give them a chance to update.
(I don't know if one Chrome release cycle wi
>From early on, requestAnimationFrame articles and documentation recommended
shims/polyfills alongside the prose.
Because of this nearly every script & library using rAF detects all
prefixes and the unprefixed standard version.
More than nearly any other prefixed API I can think of, shipping unpre
I've posted a patch to remove the "webkit" prefix from
requestAnimationFrame. [1] The question is whether or not to continue to
support the prefixed version. I propose dropping it for the following
reasons:
1. We're changing the callback semantics to match the spec. [2]
2. IE10 is shipping with t
5 matches
Mail list logo
