- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 20:55:59 -0400
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > We’ve had several conversations about CSS2 maintenance recently. I’ve added a summary of the current state of the proposal to the wiki: > > https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/rec-maintenance > > Please use this thread to discuss any changes or clarifications we may need to make. I discussed a bunch of things around the CSS2 maintenance story with plh today; I'll let him correct me if I mis-summarise him! I believe he views "We want a draft with changes in-line for review published on TR" as a goal we don't need: while we need to have "wide review", we don't need a document in TR-space for this. We're strictly making this harder for ourselves than we need to. We can just get the wide-review done on the editor's draft (or, even, from the Director's viewpoint, on the errata document itself!). As such, his suggestion is that we just take the two-ED route and do that. I'll also point out the wiki page has a paragraph beginning with "Another option, and I think more usual, is to issue a Proposed Edited Rec", but PERs don't exist under the 2017 Process, which from this thread I believe is from Liam? /g
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 00:56:34 UTC