On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Dean Jackson <d...@apple.com> wrote: > On 5 Oct 2013, at 6:22 am, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: >> 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? > > I can’t speak for anyone other than the Apple port, and even there I’m > definitely not the official word on the topic, but I don’t think that is > implied. It’s likely going to depend on perceived stability of the feature, > testing, community feedback, etc. > > The important thing is that our goal is to get to the unprefixed stable form > as soon as possible. > > Also, our prefixing/unprefixing rules are not set in stone. I think the > community > will evaluate them case by case.
I would encourage you (and others) not to ship new vendor-prefixed APIs in production releases. If the feature isn't stable enough to ship without a prefix, it's also harmful to the web ecosystem to ship with a vendor prefix. Adam _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
