3 ms·

Why do we have those prefixes in the first place? Ok, ok, test new functionalities is a good thing, but create bad practices among developers it is not. All th

Why do we have those prefixes in the first place? Ok, ok, test new functionalities is a good thing, but create bad practices among developers it is not. All the problems with IE began when they (M word) started their with own implementation of javascript, CSS, and even HTML (automatic close for tags is not ok people, developers need to learn). It is not your (browser vendors) responsibility to define your own interpretation of the standards. We have organizations that take care of this for you. All the problems involving incompatibilities began with browser vendors trying to "simplify" developers life giving their own version of the "standard". If a new functionality is not part of the standards yet it must be a reason. Why not respect that and avoid all sort of complications? Why the rush? Force organizations to release early pieces of work will generate bad industry standards. Do not like the way how one standard is defined? You will have to swallow. - by brazilian team couch Zagallo

Yaggo 15y ago
> It is not your (browser vendors) responsibility to define your own interpretation of the standards. We have organizations that take care of this for you. You realize that browser vendors are members of W3C and thus essentially creating the standards [for their commercial interests]? For example, the browsers have CSS transforms today because Apple proposed them back in 2007. (Wow, that's half a decade ago; time passes fast.) > Why the rush? Because without the "rush" by browser vendors we would be writing XHTML 2.1.14 without any fancy HTML5 stuff.
- cheald 15y ago
  And CSS transforms are still in the "working draft" stage. It's been a half-decade and they aren't a full part of the standard yet. That's why "the rush".
- marizmelo 15y ago
  Creating confusion among developers just because you want to release "fancy HTML5 stuff" doesn't seem to me as a good idea. Why not first implement these new features on your own browser as "developer version only", and prove that they work and do benefit users and the web in general? I believe that is the way you establish credibility and acceptance of a particular feature. I am not against the release of all these amazing things, but I am against the way they are currently doing it. If the proposed features do not have defined and W3C-agreed set of names and properties associated with those features, they should not be released to end users. I don't want to see something like "only for IE" in applications and websites anymore. The problem is still small for now, but it can become huge if this bad practice doesn't stop.
  - Yaggo 15y ago
    > Why not first implement these new features on your own browser as "developer version only", and prove that they work and do benefit users and the web in general? Because of the real world needs. For example, Apple has been agressively pushing HTML5 features because they needed to offer alternative for Flash. (CSS effects, <video>, etc.)

Yaggo 15y ago

> It is not your (browser vendors) responsibility to define your own interpretation of the standards. We have organizations that take care of this for you. You realize that browser vendors are members of W3C and thus essentially creating the standards [for their commercial interests]? For example, the browsers have CSS transforms today because Apple proposed them back in 2007. (Wow, that's half a decade ago; time passes fast.) > Why the rush? Because without the "rush" by browser vendors we would be writing XHTML 2.1.14 without any fancy HTML5 stuff.

cheald 15y ago
And CSS transforms are still in the "working draft" stage. It's been a half-decade and they aren't a full part of the standard yet. That's why "the rush".
marizmelo 15y ago
Creating confusion among developers just because you want to release "fancy HTML5 stuff" doesn't seem to me as a good idea. Why not first implement these new features on your own browser as "developer version only", and prove that they work and do benefit users and the web in general? I believe that is the way you establish credibility and acceptance of a particular feature. I am not against the release of all these amazing things, but I am against the way they are currently doing it. If the proposed features do not have defined and W3C-agreed set of names and properties associated with those features, they should not be released to end users. I don't want to see something like "only for IE" in applications and websites anymore. The problem is still small for now, but it can become huge if this bad practice doesn't stop.
- Yaggo 15y ago
  > Why not first implement these new features on your own browser as "developer version only", and prove that they work and do benefit users and the web in general? Because of the real world needs. For example, Apple has been agressively pushing HTML5 features because they needed to offer alternative for Flash. (CSS effects, <video>, etc.)