- From: SelenIT via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:49:30 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I'd prefer following the pattern consistent with the HTML spec development: - CSS2.1 2nd Edition (like [HTML5.1 2nd Edition](https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/)) as a republished REC, with the limited subset of errata incorporated; - its own Editor's draft (like https://rawgit.com/w3c/html/html5.1-2/single-page.html) as its errata staging draft, without the separate published verion; - CSS2.2 (like [HTML5.2](https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/)), with all CSS2.1 errata incorporated and all sections that have been updated with newer CSS modules replaced with links to those modules, as a future CSS2.x release that will eventually replace the CSS2.1 as the "[Latest CSS level 2](http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/)"; - [Editors draft of "the latest CSS level 2"](https://drafts.csswg.org/css2/) pointing to the latest state of CSS2.x development (like https://w3c.github.io/html/). Just changing the publication date, without updating the spec name, doesn't seem enough to me because people might conclude that it was just a formal editorial update (like adding the red warning box in 2016). However, the errata contain some changes in the specified behavior (e.g. rules of margin collapsing) and terminology (e.g. the term "Table Formatting Context" occurs only in the errata), which can lead to confusion. -- GitHub Notification of comment by SelenIT Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2008#issuecomment-347587042 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 16:49:35 UTC