Re: [csswg-drafts] Declare CSS2 as superseded

The Working Group just discussed `Declare CSS2 as superseded`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: say we want it (css2.1) to be the same shortname and that auto obsoletes the older`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Declare CSS2 as superseded<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2589<br>
&lt;gsnedders> q+<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Proposal was to declare css 2 as superceeded. However as it stands now it's the css 2.1 spec. What we did is at the end of the css2.1 cycle we thought having css 2 around was bad and we merged the shortnames in. We've done that for other specs before. So I don't htink we can declare css2 superceeded because we're using that short name for 2.1<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: There were resolution to make sure that various shortcuts point to the right version. We need to make sure they're impl. tr/rec/css2 points to old. We need webrec to movet hat alias to point to same as tr/css2<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Old css2 publication should show the I'm out of date notifications. But it's an older date of same spec so not superceeded.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I agree most important is redirect. That said it's not short names that are superceeded, it's rec. We could call the 1998 rec superceeded. I'm not sure what that gets us.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Question. I have a rec about something like css namespaces. THen we see an error, go to cr, and then go to rec. Do we have to make the old rec superceeded?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Process doesn't take into acocunt levels.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Not relevent.<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: I think significant thing in 2.1 was there is a change in feature set. I think we added features to 2.1 so it's a different document as defined by the process. It's the presense of new features that's significant.<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: My view here is we should makes sure we have the right base data and I don't care how we achieve that. If the process makes no sense for what we do that's a bug in the process.<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I'm not sure how well throught through the process is. I think superceded came about because there were people that wanted to make it as obsolete because there were new versions but they didn't want to call it obsolete. This was we don't want to mark the short name as the same thing. I'm inclined to think we should come up with what we think process should be. And I think we should make sure short names redirect, not mark as superceed.<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: And that we get the correct this is out of date notice.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I think we need to do that and fix the short name first. THen we should get proccess fixed to say any newer rec of the same name superceeds previous.<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: CSS 2 and 2.1 are in a slightly odd state because most things under the same short name don't both appear in tr. There's a bunch of things to fix around this.<br>
&lt;gsnedders> s/in tr/in tr.rdf/<br>
&lt;dael> florian: From the csswg pov we just need to say we want it to be the same shortname and that auto obsoletes the older. The rest is tooling bugs.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: I like that summary. Do others agree?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Objections to say we want it (css2.1) to be the same shortname and that auto obsoletes the older<br>
&lt;fantasai> Florian: We just need to say we want CSS2.0 and 2.1 to be the same shortname (CSS), and that newer RECs of the same shortname supersede the old ones, and the rest is just tooling bugs<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: say we want it (css2.1) to be the same shortname and that auto obsoletes the older<br>
&lt;fantasai> (correction to above)<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: What should tr/css21 to point to oncec 2.2 is published?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: perm redirect?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Or call it 2.1 forever.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: That's also okay.<br>
&lt;dael> gsnedders: But no one wants it to point to 2.1.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Sure.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2589#issuecomment-386155840 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2018 23:52:51 UTC