- From: Tantek Çelik via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:30:16 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
In short: the cost of switching CSS2 to use Bikeshed (and the likely fixes / changes needed to Bikeshed to handle producing a multipage spec like CSS2) is not worth the benefits. [@gsnedders](https://twitter.com/gsnedders) has been able to create a branch of CSS2 (see <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/2544>) that he can use to regenerate the existing CSS 2.1 REC with 2016 updates. That is, at this point it is likely easier (less work) to incrementally maintain the tool setup that [@gsnedders](https://twitter.com/gsnedders) has setup to build CSS2, than it is to do the work to change CSS2 to use Bikeshed. My understanding is that [@plinss](https://twitter.com/plinss) is also able to run the CSS2 build tools, and even do so automatically on the server whenever a commit is made to the /css2/ directory to rebuild the spec accordingly. PROPOSED: Automate and incrementally maintain existing CSS2 build tools instead of converting to use Bikeshed. (Originally published at: http://tantek.com/2018/102/t6/) -- GitHub Notification of comment by tantek Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2220#issuecomment-380846654 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2018 15:30:24 UTC