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

[Adam Barth]

Thanks!

Adam


On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>