Re: [csswg-drafts] Be consistent about versioning in ED URLs

The Working Group just discussed `Be consistent about versioning in ED URLs`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: use versioned URLs for EDs`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Be consistent about versioning in ED URLs<br>
&lt;dael> github:<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: This is about consistency on using level for ED.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: Is this about what the latestest version points to or what's in repo or...?<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: I think this is what hte latest version in the draft is linked to. The ED link in TR specs. I could be wrong. I'm not sure, I can't remember<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: chris anything to add?<br>
&lt;dael> chris: It wasn't quite the same thing. There's rules for latest version, but doesn't cover ED<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I think underlying problem is that CSS conditional hasn't been published since great renaming. I think solution is repub<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: Underlying issue is to have a versionless string in TR data which is API exposed. That's not a CSSWG thing<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: If this is all pulling from a draft we should prob decide if we want versioned URLs for ED links<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: Yes<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I think versionless is problematic when we have 2 levels being worked on which happens a decent amount of time<br>
&lt;chris> most of the time, I would say<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Go with versioned URLs. It's simpler and always correct.<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: If use versioned do we want anything linked to a later level. Once we publish as CR and start new work on a new level do we want to link to that level?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: That's what TR latest is supposed to be for<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: Do we want to link to a newer ED<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I think no. Let's say grid 1 and 2 are pub. Having ED link for grid 1 go to grid 2 isn't helpful. If you find issues on L1 you should file them on L1. But if you'relooking for latest you should go to L2. The ED URL shouldn't try to negotiate which level you're looking at.<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: Also presupposes we pub a FPWD soon after starting a new level<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: We do that frequently. When we don't it's because it's really shaky and you shouldn't be referencing it<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: To avoid the discussion going into publishing management. URLs and URL versioning. Last proposal that resonated was to stick with using versioned URL. Can we resolve on that?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Objections to use versioned URLs for EDs<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: use versioned URLs for EDs<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: I don't object, but I want to check if there are things we haven't published but we should have<br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2018 16:44:20 UTC