- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 17:03:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The Working Group just discussed `Anchors changed in CSS 2 in-place edit in 2016`, and agreed to the following resolutions: * `RESOLVED: take current draft and revert to 2011 anchors.` * `RESOLVED: take dated 2011 rec and revert link changes.` * `RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/TR/TR/2016/REC-CSS2-20160412/ is what is currently at http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 and /TR/CSS2/ redirects to http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 and ChrisL may add a warning note about the 2016 links as he sees necessary` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: Anchors changed in CSS 2 in-place edit in 2016<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2551<br> <dael> gsnedders: When css 2.1 was edited in place in 2016 all anchors were changed. This is bad.<br> <ChrisL> facepalm on edited-in-place<br> <dael> gsnedders: Because it was an in place edit the old 2011 URLs point to the 2016 copy of the spec. Ther'es noting in TR space with old anchors.<br> <ChrisL> q+<br> <dael> gsnedders: Question is do we want the pre or post 2016 anchors when we edit.<br> <dael> florian: Pre or both<br> <dael> ChrisL: Pre. Old links will be to pre ones. We should pretend this didn't happen.<br> <dael> florian: Both in case new links.<br> <dael> TabAtkins: Agree. both is easy.<br> <dael> ChrisL: Is it?<br> <dael> gsnedders: Not too bad<br> <dael> ChrisL: Messy, but okay.<br> <dael> gsnedders: Pre is easy<br> <dael> tantek: Editors prefer pre<br> <dael> gsnedders: I think we should look at how hard for both.<br> <dael> florian: I suspect most newer links might be ones we made from bikeshed so if can scan draft for new links nad fix that's okay.<br> <dael> tantek: That's the theory<br> <dbaron> I think whatever we do, we should publicly archive the two copies of the spec rather than just overwriting.<br> <dael> TabAtkins: A lot of 2.1 links ar emanual.<br> <dael> fantasai: Are all links broken? Looks like not all.<br> <dael> fantasai: When we link to 2.1 we do to section headings and those were manual choosen IDs.<br> <dael> florian: There's links to definitions.<br> <dael> gsnedders: Only manually spec ones ahve not changed.<br> <dael> fantasai: We rarely link to those so revert should be fine.<br> <dael> fantasai: Most links have been to section headings.<br> <dael> fantasai: 2.1 didn't have rigerous mark up or auto cross references so I think it's safe to revert.<br> <dael> plinss: True for test links?<br> <dael> fantasai: prop def I'm guessing didn't change.<br> <dael> florian: I don't think there's a lot of new 2.1 tests since 2016.<br> <dael> florian: Prop a handful of places but edit those is easier then reference both.<br> <tantek> yes please<br> <dael> fantasai: prop def & section headings have not changed.<br> <dael> astearns: If we rever that's a statement on IRC from dbaron that we should publically archieve a copy of the spec with these links. Will we have that?<br> <dael> ChrisL: Dated version was edited in place which should never have been done.<br> <dael> tantek: We're undoing damage to dated version.<br> <dael> gsnedders: 2011 dated will have 2016 anchors.<br> <dael> florian: Not ideal.<br> <dael> gsnedders: So we edit in place the 2011 to undo the anchors change?<br> <dael> tantek: Yes. Becaues they were around from 2011-2016 and referenced more.<br> <dael> fantasai: You might...if you want a copy of 2016 anchors then maybe ChrisL can you get exception to normal process and get 2016 date that corrisponds.<br> <dael> ChrisL: Mgith be. No promise.<br> <dael> fantasai: In that case you can copy and then revert.<br> <Rossen_> q?<br> <ChrisL> /TR/REC-css2-2016-broken/<br> <dael> astearns: 3 things. 1st is take current draft and revert to 2011 anchors. Obj?<br> <fantasai> :)<br> <tantek> yes that ChrisL<br> <dael> RESOLVED: take current draft and revert to 2011 anchors.<br> <Rossen_> ChrisL, do you still need to be on the queue?<br> <ChrisL> q-<br> <dael> astearns: take dated 2011 draft and revert link changes.<br> <dael> astearns: Obj?<br> <dael> gsnedders: draft or rec?<br> <dael> astearns: 2011 dated rec<br> <dael> RESOLVED: take dated 2011 rec and revert link changes.<br> <tantek> ChrisL: /TR/REC-css2-2016-fragged/<br> <dael> astearns: 3rd is produce a 2016 dated doc that retains those links.<br> <dael> gsnedders: Change 2011 back to original copy?<br> <dael> ChrisL: Think so.<br> <dael> florian: difference other then link?<br> <dael> gsnedders: Notice that we're working on other things, changes to process that effect PDF copy.<br> <dael> dbaron: Big obsoletion notice?<br> <dael> gsnedders: That's the big 2016 change.<br> <dael> florian: Want to keep that.<br> <dael> gsnedders: Add fixup.js that eerything else uses.<br> <dael> ChrisL: Yes.<br> <dael> gsnedders: Other small editorial changes made in 2016, but very minor.<br> <dael> ChrisL: Why changes made?<br> <dael> gsnedders: There's a min-height that in 2011 cross-ref to height and now it's correct.<br> <dael> ChrisL: Fixing broken link. I'd like to keep if can.<br> <dael> ChrisL: Revert, add js, patch in small editorial fix ups?<br> <dael> gsnedders: sure.<br> <dael> astearns: Preference to 2011?<br> <dael> ChrisL: 2016 dated.<br> <dael> ChrisL: 2011 should also have js added.<br> <dael> florian: Slightly confused. If adding 2016 dated I thought goal was preserve the new links. If it's later then 2011 the fixed is hidden by broken. Useful?<br> <dael> tantek: A new 2016 dated version will have 0 links so it doesn't matter fragments.<br> <dael> florian: New [missed]<br> <dael> gsnedders: Depends where /cc2 goes<br> <gsnedders> s/cc2/CSS2/<br> <dael> tantek: We won't link /css2 to that.<br> <dael> tantek: It's keep an archival copy. Not refer to that as latest.<br> <dael> florian: Okay with it under assumption that not latest can be where the undated link goes. If that's not possible then no.<br> <dael> dbaron: It wasn't a request to have it in TR space, but somewhere so you can figure out where a link went.<br> <dael> fantasai: I think having it in TR space is okay and you don't link to it.<br> <dael> astearns: Might be easier in draft space then deal with TR publication<br> <dael> fantasai: Leave it to ChrisL because it's much easier for him to do that.<br> <fantasai> he just has to convince webmaster to let him :)<br> <dael> florian: Can we resolve on havig an archival copy on TR or on drafts depending on ease?<br> <dael> ChrisL: Make sure there's good minutes and I'll discuss all of this with plh<br> <gsnedders> proposal: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 has fixup.js and the original pre-2016 links<br> <dael> astearns: WE want a dated 2011 document with the js that says it's old and with the original links. We also want a 2016 dated document witht he original links and all the changes that went into 2016. And we want a dated doc somewhere that isn't the latest and has the weird links for posterity<br> <dael> astearns: Correct?<br> <gsnedders> porposal: http://www.w3.org/TR/TR/2016/REC-CSS2-20160412/ is what is currently at http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607<br> <dael> florian: Seems acceptable. DOn't know if we need 11 and 16 on TR. What you said is okay.<br> <gsnedders> proposal: /TR/CSS2/ redirects to http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607<br> <dael> fantasai: I think what gsnedders said is more sensible. WE just have 2011 draft restored and a copy of 2016 somewhere.<br> <dael> fantasai: I'd resolve on gsnedders in IRC<br> <dael> astearns: Is http://www.w3.org/TR/TR/2016/REC-CSS2-20160412/ is what is currently at http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 enough for you?<br> <dael> ChrisL: Yes.<br> <dael> tantek: If you want to add a warning to 2016 TR vresion noting fragments are different, that's okay.<br> <ChrisL> rrsagent, here<br> <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2018/04/25-css-irc#T17-03-24<br> <dael> RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/TR/TR/2016/REC-CSS2-20160412/ is what is currently at http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 and /TR/CSS2/ redirects to http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 and ChrisL may add a warning note about the 2016 links as he sees necessary<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2551#issuecomment-384360854 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2018 17:03:35 UTC