W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2009

RE: Names of CSS specifications

From: Molly E. Holzschlag <mholzschlag@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:22:50 -0700
To: "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "'L. David Baron'" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: "'Anne van Kesteren'" <annevk@opera.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002a01c97b4d$a2248390$e66d8ab0$@com>

Some consistency in nomenclature would be very helpful. I think having
"module" in each module title will be awkward at first but for
communications purposes, it's providing distinction from other versions of
CSS, and other CSS3 modules. 

This can help greatly in both the training of devs/designers as well as in
their day to day work.

Loves to name things,
Molly

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of fantasai
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 2:32 PM
> To: L. David Baron
> Cc: Anne van Kesteren; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Names of CSS specifications
> 
> 
> L. David Baron wrote:
> > On Tuesday 2009-01-20 13:47 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >> It seems we are not that consistent in naming our specifications. Do
> we
> >> care about fixing this? http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-
> work.html is
> >> also not consistent with specifications.
> >>
> >> E.g.
> >>
> >>   CSS3 Module: Fonts
> >>   CSS Color Module Level 3
> >>   CSS Text Level 3
> >>   CSS Namespaces Module
> >>   CSS3 Basic User Interface Module
> >>
> >> are all different in style.
> >
> > One difference is that the first and last are considerably older
> > than the other three.  In particular, we discussed modularization in
> > May 2006 when we decided that the modules can progress
> > independently (minuted at [1], member-only).
> >
> > The middle three seem largely consistent.  Namespaces in in fact
> > substantively different from the others in that the features it
> > defines are new.
> >
> >> Now it might be that http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work.html
> >> suggests consistent names for these in the table fantasai made
> though
> >> even there I find CSSOM View Module where none of the other names
> have
> >> Module in them.
> >
> > I think these may well have been intended to be the new names used.
> 
> It is as dbaron says. We have a resolution to use the names in the
> current-work table going forward, with the addition of "Module":
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2007JulSep/0114.html
> 
>   | CSS Module Naming
>   | -----------------
>   |
>   |    Christoph Päper noticed that our naming is rather inconsistent.
>   |    fantasai proposes using the names in the table at
>   |      http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work
>   |    RESOLVED use names in current-work, except add "Module",
>   |    e.g."CSS Foo Module Level 3"
> 
> ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2009 07:28:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:15 GMT