patch for 'cssFloat'

[David Hyatt]

On Oct 2, 2003, at 6:17 PM, Dirk Mueller wrote:

> However, we always tried to use the CSS specified name for things that 
> we
> implemented as experimental support. Even if the spec writers decide to
> rename the property or to drop it completely. Prime exception is that
> -konq-input-mode property that was recently added, but its still on my 
> TODO
> list to fix this one glitch.
>

My fellow CSS WG members would flame me alive if Safari were released 
with CSS3 properties that didn't have a vendor prefix attached.

CSS3 is a draft.  The definition of the property (or even the name of 
the property) could change.

Most importantly, the behavior of the property could be changed, and if 
you have a released product with the wrong behavior, then people won't 
be able to use the property reliably in later versions of your product 
without having to worry about the buggy behavior of an earlier version.

opacity is actually a prime example of a property whose behavior has 
continued to change.  The current -moz-opacity of Mozilla 1.4 (Netscape 
7) does not match what has now been specified in CSS3.  Had they used 
the real term "opacity", they would now have a browser that would screw 
up if someone tried to use the property in a Web page six months from 
now.

If we want to distinguish between internal properties and experimental 
properties, that's fine, but we can't just implement CSS3 properties 
without qualifying them with a prefix.

> Isn't the property name the CSS workgroup specifies just "opacity" ?
> Then why not use that?