- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 11:32:57 -0700
- To: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
- Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, Chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
> On May 8, 2017, at 17:55 , Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com> wrote: > > 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? um, I think ‘edited recommendation’ exists, and it goes through a ‘proposed’ stage <https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#rec-edited> David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 18:33:56 UTC