> Aren't we gradually getting rid of CSS2, bit by bit? I thought we had agreed to start removing sections and replace them with links to the Level 3+ specs that replaced each one. That was my understanding as well, but then they got readded based on feedback from @fantasai IIRC in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/3652e8b825e6c50a96a7023cb51dc2bb5fcac6db AIUI, despite seemingly there being a resolution for the Syntax side at least ("RESOLVED: Remove CSS grammar section in CSS 2.2 and have a pointer to CSS syntax", 2016-10-12), presumably because neither @fantasai nor @bert-github were aware of the WG having resolved that. I should file an issue on that. :) (Also, deleting text makes it easier to move to Bikeshed!) Note that it is very much bit-by-bit, given css-box-3 has scarcely been touched in over a decade, hence we're going to have some parts of CSS2 referred to relatively long term. > I agree that having to edit a non-bikeshed spec and use an old, unmaintained preprocessor is a pain; plus we have a nice, bikeshed-driven index of all properties and CSS2 doesn't contribute to that. But a wholesale document conversion on a progressively-obsoleted spec seems like a lot of work for little payback, especially if it breaks existing links. To be clear here: I am happy to do the work and try and avoid it breaking links, because I think the gains are sufficient to justify it, even based purely on the parts that aren't going to be replaced any time soon. -- GitHub Notification of comment by gsnedders Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2220#issuecomment-359985151 using your GitHub accountReceived on Wednesday, 24 January 2018 01:02:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:23 UTC