W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Levels and modular structure (was: Unprefixing CSS properties)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:57:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAde6FL9hE=SZ-h=-jHPoNRCtQTj=7QMRfhrUVF7me5kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
Cc: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Christoph Päper
<christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote:
> Boris Zbarsky:
>
>> It would make just as much sense to talk about "Selectors Level 4" but "Grid Layout Level 1", in my opinion.
>
> Much more than just as much – at least if CSS had been modular from the beginning. As the world is now it makes some sense to start new modules on level 3. A major problem remains, though, in that some but not all parts of the monolithic level 2 specification have been moved into modules.

Why is that a problem?  It merely means that we haven't felt a strong
enough need to update those portions yet.  That's fine.


> A lesson to be learned is that there should be processes clearly defined how to join or split modules in the future. In my humble opinion, merging is simple(r), whereas forking should only be allowed if all previous features of a module remain in exactly one of its successors and those develop at the same pace.

Hm, why do you feel this is necessary?  I see nothing wrong with a
splitting a module so that a piece contains only part of the
down-level spec.  For example, if backgrounds or borders kept getting
more complicated, splitting B&B to be just B and B in separate specs
would be perfectly appropriate.  Similarly, if we continue developing
gradients, it might make sense to split them out of Image Values to a
separate Gradients spec.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 15:58:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT