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vendor-specific prefix * disputed, see also Transitions section I'm not familiar with this document, so perhaps it's out of date.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. 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
