Comments on: Vendor Tokens

By: John Lascurettes

John Lascurettes — Thu, 10 May 2012 22:37:53 +0000

Never mind. I read the proposal. Same result though. I’m liking it.

Advantage? Any browser which is not webkit but implemented border-radius in
a way that is compatible with the “webkit draft” can support the
declaration. This is different from vendor prefixes: other browsers don’t
impersonnate webkit, they just acknowledge they support one specific
property the way the webkit draft defines it. Browsers which are not
compatible with that draft will just ignore the declaration. Browsers that
change their implementation of a property are encouraged to iterate their
“!vendor-draft” flag (using a version number, if appropriate).

By: John Lascurettes

John Lascurettes — Thu, 10 May 2012 22:35:55 +0000

What do do when it’s a early adoption of a proposal that changes. I’m looking at you border-radius. -webkit-border-radius had a different shorthand implementation early on than -moz-border-radius. Same goes for background gradients. We would gang different implementations of an experimental implementation with this could we?

What I DO like is that this would have avoided the whole situation where other vendors are picking up -webkit now. I assume the !webkit would be there just to say you’re passing it off to Webkit during the “experimental” phase, but if others wanted to pick it up, they simply could pick it up off the general property declaration. Is that how it would work?

By: wafsd

wafsd — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:55:22 +0000

Yes, this is cleaner and easier to maintain than the current vendor prefix method. I would prefer not having the redundant “-draft” to keep it as succinct as possible.

By: Pete B

Pete B — Wed, 09 May 2012 10:59:50 +0000

Can’t say I’m much enthused as it looks like swapping one ugly for a different one.

By: Schmoo

Schmoo — Wed, 09 May 2012 09:12:17 +0000

Change the way a browser parses CSS in order to avoid the workaround code we have to use because we can’t change the way a browser parses CSS? Eh?

By: Eric Meyer

Eric Meyer — Wed, 09 May 2012 01:02:14 +0000

Actually, I left out !ms because they’ve been avoiding using prefixes. I just assumed that general policy would continue.

I don’t know if platform prefixes would be a good idea or not, but they’d certainly be a lot easier to add and use than prefixes.

By: Brian LePore

Brian LePore — Tue, 08 May 2012 22:15:57 +0000

Poor ole Microsoft gets left in the cold. :-p

Should the concept of vendor prefixes/tokens be extended to operating systems (in particular for mobile operating systems)? I don’t think I’m alone in having a feature like CSS transitions work on Android, but not on iOS (or vice versa).

By: CW Petersen

CW Petersen — Tue, 08 May 2012 21:39:25 +0000

I once mentioned, and I still think it might be appropriate, that since every vendor is proposing an implementation, or if you will, a candidate for the final release, the the single prefix ‘rc-’ would be appropriate. Then every vendor’s browser would recognise this as what it was and undertake to render their particular release candidate.

Now some would mention that not all vendors use the same order for parameters, but if they could go that far, it would make our lives a bit simpler.