- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:13:33 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Yes, that's documented in the changes section I pointed to. It's a change, but not a "feature", which Tantek seems to be drawing a distinction between. -- Tangentially, I continue to assert that treating 2.1 as a separate artifact that can be usefully implemented on its own is worthless; it's correct treatment is as the grab-bag CSS module for anything that hasn't yet been explicitly ported into a properly-named module of its own. To the extent that W3C process interferes with this, it's W3C process where the bug lies, and shouldn't be part of our decision-making process. As such, I'm still in favor of just making CSS's syntax officially undefined in 2.1, with Syntax being the normative definition for implementations. There is no value in trying to subset Syntax for 2.1 purposes; it does literally nothing for anyone, and is purely an exercise in box-ticking for Process purposes. Officially-undefined is a useful way to indicate that CSS's syntax is no longer defined by that document, supporting my "2.1 is a grab-bag module" assertion. And dropping things never reduces test coverage, either, so there's no Process problems with that. ^_^ -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2224#issuecomment-381698961 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 16 April 2018 18:13:35 UTC