On 3 Oct 2013, at 4:46 am, Christian Biesinger <cbiesin...@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:53 PM, James Craig <jcr...@apple.com> wrote:
>>> Follow-up question:  Since this hasn’t made it into the CSS4 spec yet,
>>> should we temporarily use “-webkit-alt” for the property name? I know there
>>> has been a push to move away from vendor prefixes lately, so if there are no
>>> objections, I propose we use the unprefixed version.
>> I think that's what Mozilla and Google are doing but I don't think we
>> necessary have to follow the suit.
> FYI, because IMO this is an important clarification - Mozilla and
> Google use unprefixed versions only *behind a (runtime) flag*, until
> the spec is stable. That way experimental features are not exposed to
> the web at large until it is unlikely that the spec will change, to
> avoid cross-browser compatibility risks.

We decided on a slightly different approach, which is to prefix things
but enable them by default in nightly builds. That way a port must still
decide at their shipping time whether or not to enable the feature.

In the Moz + Google case, the experimental form is exposed unprefixed to a small
number of users on the Web. In our case, the experimental form is exposed
prefixed. We concluded that we’ve changed things enough times while prefixed
that it was worth the extra “this is experimental and may change” notice.


webkit-dev mailing list

Reply via email to