On 9/22/2011 2:42 PM, James Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
mailto:ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/22/2011 2:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011, Dean Jackson wrote:
However, isn't prefixing designed to avoid
incompatibilities in spec
changes, not incompatibilities between implementations?
Ensuring no
conflicts in implementations doesn't matter too much if
the spec
changes.
It's designed to ensure that authors can reliably use a name
and expect to
get the same result in any UA that supports that name.
I'm not going to change the spec in a way that conflicts with
that -- if
the spec has to change, it'll change either in a compatible
way (e.g. to
match what was actually implemented), or in a way that doesn't
conflict
(e.g. by changing the name in the spec).
Note I'm not talking about Microdata in particular. I
don't even know
what that spec is :) I'm just talking about the general
approach. If the
world can guarantee that this spec will never change, then
I guess your
technique works.
FWIW, there is an in-between approach, which is the one
used by WebGL.
It defines a prefix that all implementations share.
canvas.getContext(experimental-webgl);
That'll just result in that name becoming the standard.
I would like some kind of fast track method for these kind of
issues.
Something like a Request for dropping prefix RfDP protocol would
be super.
Please post this feedback to some thread where it's relevant, not on a
WebKit development mailing list discussion about a specific feature.
James Robinson, this thread is about introducing a specific feature,
Microdata, into the WebKit code base.
ENABLE flags are present, vendor prefixing is absent.
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=108313action=review
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=108313action=review
I have no intention of sending irrelevant e-mails to your inbox, nor
derailing this conversation.
I think we can all agree that Arko Saha's work is welcome. The patch is
quite simple, it's easy to review.
I do not believe I've stepped outside the thread, nor do I believe Dean
Jackson was being counter-productive when he pointed out that vendor
prefixing is not an issue particular to this feature.
Dean Jackson and Ian Hickson spoke about whether or not the vendor
prefix should be included. Ian suggested that vendors should skip vendor
prefixing.
Dean is a bit more cautious, and has good reason to be. WebKit's
experience with File API encountered quite a bit of criticism from other
vendors.
Both Adam Barth and Dean would like to avoid controversy with other
vendors. That's the impression I'm getting.
My concern, on this WebKit development mailing list, is that introducing
another method -without- vendor prefixing may create some tension that
WebKit developers would like to avoid.
It simple patch. As far as I can tell, vendor prefixing is exactly what
should be discussed. The patch can be approved by one person, the
decision on whether or not to prefix the method name should be discussed
by multiple vendors. WebKit serves multiple vendors.
Again, I'm not trying to get in your inbox, James. If this still makes
no sense to you, or I've misunderstood other WebKit developers, I do
apologize.
I'm trying to contribute, I'm not always successful at it.
-Charles
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
