3 ms·
I was happy to see this from the link in the email: Vendor Prefixes Historically, browsers have relied on vendor prefixes (e.g., -webkit-feature) to ship exper
by ndesaulniers 13y ago
I was happy to see this from the link in the email:
Vendor Prefixes
Historically, browsers have relied on vendor prefixes (e.g., -webkit-feature) to ship experimental features to web developers. This approach can be harmful to compatibility because web content comes to rely upon these vendor-prefixed names. Going forward, instead of enabling a feature by default with a vendor prefix, we will instead keep the (unprefixed) feature behind the “enable experimental web platform features” flag in about:flags until the feature is ready to be enabled by default. Mozilla has already embarked on a similar policy and the W3C CSS WG formed a rough consensus around a complementary policy.
I remember people getting worried that app developers might tell users to dig through their about:config equivalent to access the "full version" of this site. Glad that things are moving away from vendor prefixes. Kind of sad to see web audio still vendor prefixed (and the O'Reilly book shipped with the old API, lol!), but I assume that was implemented before the webkit/blink split.
- erichocean 13y agoGoing forward, instead of enabling a feature by default with a vendor prefix, we will instead keep the (unprefixed) feature behind the “enable experimental web platform features” flag in about:flags until the feature is ready to be enabled by default. For the feature's we're talking about (JS methods and CSS stuff), doing so will mean that effectively no web authors use it. It's no different than requiring a plugin to view content. Anything hidden behind a feature flag might as well not exist, at least for those two categories. For dev tools, stuff like that? Sure, feature flags are the way to go.