W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > June 2018

Re: [csswg-drafts] Anchors changed in CSS 2 in-place edit in 2016

From: Geoffrey Sneddon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 00:17:31 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-397476019-1529021849-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Just so I'm clear, because I'm not any more, "RESOLVED: take dated 2011 rec and revert link changes", meant replacing https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/ with… what? the 2016 edited-in-place version but with the old links?

I think having since managed to pull off https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/b11694edb816c5d1fb935dbc3dfd377a5c7cb312, we should revisit the above resolutions and do one of:

 * Accept history that the 2016 edit-in-place happened, and edit the 2011 dated URL *again* to add both old and new anchors to the HTML copy (though I'd rather not try and regenerate the informative PDF etc. copies)
 * Restore the 2011 dated URL to its original publication in 2011 (plus /TR/-wide changes since, most obviously adding fixup.js) and ask very nicely to be granted a 2016 dated URL for the edited-in-place version from 2016 (though note that document *doesn't* comply with the pubrules in effect in 2016, so W3M may say no)

Given it is plausible to add both anchors after all, I think the former is probably the easier and more reasonable option (especially given it means we don't need to get permission to create a new 2016 URL to publish a document that complies with neither 2016 nor today's pubrules).

GitHub Notification of comment by gsnedders
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2551#issuecomment-397476019 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 15 June 2018 00:17:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 19 September 2019 01:18:58 UTC