- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:33:51 +0900
- To: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
> On Dec 20, 2016, at 02:15, Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com> wrote: > >> The rough and extremely outdated approximation of this is CSS2.1 >> REC and the CSS2.2 draft. What we need to do is have a way to >> actually push the updates to CSS2.1 REC. I see two ways of doing >> this within the W3C Process: >> >> Method 1: >> Periodically republish the two-implementations version of >> CSS2.1 as PER and have the AC approve it back to REC. >> Keep the WD of CSS2.2 updated as a perpetual "CSS2.1.Next". > > Is there any reason why we can't call the WD "CSS 2.1 5th Edition"? & > I'm strongly in favour of method 1, but without calling *anything* 2.2. > Keeping everything called 2.1 makes it *very* clear that it is the > version of 2.1 they should be looking at, and clarifies the questions > Greg was asking on GitHub about maintaining testsuites. (IMO, it makes > absolutely no sense to maintain a 2.1 and a 2.2 testsuite as we actively > *do not want* people to implement 2.1.) I support this, and there's precedent: https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/ –Florian
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2016 04:34:22 UTC