[webkit-dev] Updated https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/DeprecatingFeatures (was Re: Removing the prefix from webkitPostMessage)

[Maciej Stachowiak]

For now I changed the wording to remove the claim about an explicit request by the CSS WG:
[[
* Standards citizenship. The CSS Working Group ​is considering requesting that implementors remove support for vendor prefixed featuresonce the specifications of the features reach a certain level of maturity, typically Candidate Recommendation. To be good citizens of these standards bodies, we should make an effort to remove vendor prefixes, even if doing so would incur a larger compatibility cost than we would otherwise prefer.
]]

since that is supported by the linked reference and matches what I have heard from Apple's CSS WG reps. I also removed the reference to "many W3C Working Groups" since I do not know of any others with any policy about prefixing.

Feel free to change back if you find data to support a stronger claim. Also perhaps the standards citizenship argument could be made without relying on what specific standards bodies explicitly ask for, but I did not want to rewrite it that much,

Cheers,
Maciej

On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:21 PM, Adam Barth <abarth at webkit.org> wrote:

> [+Tab]
> 
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sep 21, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Adam Barth <abarth at webkit.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Yeah, "obligation" is probably too loaded a word.  Here's some updated text:
>> 
>> [[
>> * Standards citizenship. Many W3C working groups, including the CSS
>> working group, request that implementors remove support for vendor
>> prefixed features once the specifications of the features reach a
>> certain level of maturity, typically Candidate Recommendation. To be
>> good citizens of these standards bodies, we should make an effort to
>> remove vendor prefixes, even if doing so would incur a larger
>> compatibility cost than we would otherwise prefer.
>> ]]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Looks good. I checked the reference on the "request that implementors remove
>> support for vendor prefixed features" link, which points to
>> <http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/vendor-prefixes>. It looks like that document
>> does not exeactly support the claim made - it seems to contain proposed but
>> not yet agreed upon guidance:
>> 
>>    Simple straw proposal guidance.
>> 
>> at least some of which is explicitly marked as disputed, e.g.:
>> 
>>    * SHOULD NOT retain older, incompatible implementations with
>> vendor-specific prefix
>>        * disputed, see also Transitions section
>> 
>> I'm not familiar with this document, so perhaps it's out of date. But in any
>> case, I suggest either softening the claim used to cite it to match what it
>> says, or using a better reference.
> 
> Tab, do you know what's the most up-to-date document to reference from
> the CSS working group about how implementors should handle vendor
> prefixes?
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
>> The impression I got is that the CSS WG is considering making a request that
>> implementors remove support for vendor prefixed features and perhaps even is
>> likely to, but hasn't quite done so yet.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>>