4 ms·
Historically, the web standards process was theorized to work like: 1) vendor introduces new feature, tagged with vendor name to not pollute the namespace (e.g
by evmar 13y ago
Historically, the web standards process was theorized to work like:
1) vendor introduces new feature, tagged with vendor name to not pollute the namespace (e.g. -webkit-foo, or msapplication-TileColor from the OP)
2) once feature becomes popular enough to warrant its permanence, vendors agree on some new standard name for the agreed-upon behavior
3) ???
4) everyone uses the new standard name
The problem with this idea is that step 3 is missing. Browsers can't drop their -webkit CSS support because old pages rely on it, and new pages still use -webkit to work on old browsers. The original name is effectively permanent so there's little incentive to even take step 2, because all that produces is two names for the same thing (e.g. you use an attribute with "apple" in the name to choose the Android icon).
In recognition of the failure of this process, Blink (and other browsers) is using a different approach, where new features are not namespaced; instead, they'll require users to individually opt-in to nonstandard features, under the idea that it's hard for an idea to become permanent if it requires each user to individually configure their browser:
http://www.chromium.org/blink#vendor-prefixes http://www.chromium.org/blink#vendor-prefixes
I am a little skeptical that this will only result in going too far the other way -- new features will wither because you can't experiment with them enough to get enough mass behind them to standardize them -- but at least it's not retreading the known broken path.
- ftwinnovations 13y ago5) wait another 7 years for IE to implement it, with their own "twist". 6) wait another 5 years for IE to properly implement it.
- leokun 13y agoI haven't tested nor cared how something appears in IE in years. Since like 2009. I have worked on major frontends for a couple of big companies all this time and recently a startup. IE is the new opera. IE needs to make sure that everything works. It may have large marketshare, but it's the market that's irrelevant to anything I've worked on (IT and business related tools and control panels).
- dspillett 13y agoLucky you. Investment banking compliance software here. IE8 and little else every-'king-were... If I ever win the lottery I'm taking out full page ads in the national newspapers asking the general public if they know how stupidly out of date certain banks are internally and asking it it fills them with confidence or not!
- bpatrianakos 13y agoIs this really how it works? I know many do go solely with the -webkit or -moz property name to experiment with new features but for any site that's important (not an experiment, needs decent cross browser support) what I see happening is that most developers will do it the right way - they'll use all the available prefixes and end with the eventual standard property name while at the same time ensuring that use of these new features doesn't look completely broken in browsers that don't support the prefixes or non-prefixed version. It's very rare that I'll see a developer code in such a way that they totally leave out a fallback or code with just one browser in mind. At least not when it comes to any site of importance (these include any site meant for a large audience, non-techies, business, and just generally not a site put together purely for showing off the uses of an experimental feature). I didn't know Blink was going that route too. I fear that the use of new experimental features will stagnate if Chrome becomes too popular among non-techies.