Yet another considered harmful essay has hit the web. This time it is PPK, a well known JavaScript guru and very influential author that has written it. And I get to disagree with another one of my heroes. (Just recently I have disagreed with Rasmus Leerdorf on the naming of the next major PHP version...)
Basically PPK is like many others fed up with writing the same rule 2, 3 or even 4 times. You know the drill:
-moz-border-radius: npx;
-webkit-border-radius: npx;
border-radius: npx;
Proposals do change
Case in point is border-radius and gradients. Mozilla could not just drop -moz- from border radius, since their 6 year old implementation is not aligned with standards. Webkit can not drop the prefix from their gradients rules, since the standard probably - please note that word, probably - will look like Mozillas implementation.
I also note that he has put the non-prefixed version of a rule before the prefixed ones, which is not optimal for the very same reason. A problem I have dealt with in an earlier blog post.
Experimental versions are needed for things to move along. Without them very few people will be able to experiment and improve the proposal. This is a real need, this is a real problem.
Contrary to what PPK says, vendors do not simply copy each other. They often start that way, end then they run into questions like what about...
and they will have to discuss and test and decide and make changes. Both to the implementation and the spec. Such discussions take place on the W3C mailing lists all the time.
Standards must be standards
PPK dislikes vendor prefixes because they seem to be the opposite of standards: Vendor specific rules, code forks, similar to browser sniffing in JavaScript.
But what he is proposing is effectually doing away with the entire W3C process. Yes, it is slow and burdened by politics. But if we drop vendor prefixes that will mean that as soon as a browser puts out a new technology it, by virtue of being first, has decided unilaterally what the syntax should look like and how it should work in every browser. This is not a standards process, this is in fact the opposite. First to market rules and everyone else be damned!
Experimental versions of future standards are a good thing, since they allow for real discussion and much more thorough standardization. One of the reasons standards are moving slowly is that today they are much more detailed, much more tested and therefore much more reliable.
This is not unique to web standards. Consider IEEE802.11n and the fact that we for a couple of years had draft
version equipment on the market. Good or bad? It made the final implementation better, so yes it was good. And a necessary evil as well.
There must be room for errors
Webkit has not copied Mozilla's implementation of border-radius and Mozilla has not copied Webkit's gradients. Having discussed the proposals changes have been made, lessons have been learned and this has happened in real life.
If a vendor must not use prefixes it would take forever to get to a place where they would be confident enough to put out a new technology. Opera and Microsoft may skip the prefix for border radius, since thanks to Mozilla that 6 years ago put out an experimental implementation and thanks to Webkit, that 3 years ago put a out a slightly different experimental implementation, the standard has now reached Candidate Recommendation status and web authors demand the technology, because we have been able to experiment with it!
If it had not been for prefixes, only a very few people would actually have bothered to download experimental browsers and try this out. That is our only other option. The word would not have spread and demand had not been built up.
Is summary. PPK, I love your work and have tons of respect four you. But in this case you are wrong. I will not shout long live the prefixes
, since I wish that every prefixed CSS rule should have short life. But I want that short life to be productive.
