On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Dean Jackson <d...@apple.com> wrote: > 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.
Does this imply that you'll remove the prefixes before shipping the features in a production release? Adam _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
