I'm waiting for the people writing the CSS and HTML standards to do something like be more proactive about approving extensions so we don't need the -webkit garbage in front of rules.
It should be as simple as filling out a form requesting a property and getting it within a matter of weeks at the outside.
If you can apply for ".poop" as a top-level domain name, there's no excuse for not having a CSS registry.
Can you imagine the size of the CSS spec if any old brainless mutt could add to it on a few weeks' notice for the past 15 years? At which point, creating a fresh browser implementation quickly becomes insurmountable.
I never said that they'd all be approved. Surely an extension request from someone the committee had never heard of would be rejected, but from the WebKit or Mozilla crew they would give it consideration.
It would help break up the formalization process into smaller components.
Even then, until it's absorbed into the standard there's no obligation to implement that property. It would just mean you could be assured that if your proposal did make it into the standard, you would already be using the correct name.
Creating a fresh browser implementation is pretty much already insurmountable! The last time anyone major implemented a browser from scratch (at least in a major sense) was Mozilla in the late 90s: everyone since has just built on previous work, as even though people may hate design decisions (that made sense a decade ago!) the cost of starting again is too high.
Adding a TLD requires a single DNS entry. Adding a CSS property requires a full specification of how it behaves and interacts with the rest of the CSS model. The former is simple, the latter is hard.
It should be as simple as filling out a form requesting a property and getting it within a matter of weeks at the outside.
If you can apply for ".poop" as a top-level domain name, there's no excuse for not having a CSS registry.