- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 17:01:30 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Copy document conventions (and conformance?) from 2.1`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Push boilerplate to the end of documents` * `RESOLVED: Cannonical propdef should go to OM and applies to propdef should go to cascade.` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: Copy document conventions (and conformance?) from 2.1<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1867#issuecomment-424755198<br> <dael> florian: This and next are related.<br> <dael> florian: This one is there is the bottomm o f every spec a section about conformance criteria. At some point we moved that to snapshot and removed from other specs. I don't think i t's a good i dea b/c snapshot is a note and normative text in a note is not possible. And if snapshot is a WD it wouldn't work b/c it's not intended to be a REC.<br> <dael> florian: If we want that text normatively referred to we can do that, I jsut don't think snapshot is a good place to do it. Also because we have a practice of changing snapshot shortname every time we update.<br> <dael> florian: I would like to not do that.<br> <dael> Rossen_: Reasonable. What do others think?<br> <dael> fantasai: I like the i dea of pulling boilerplate from end of specs. We didn't do it because there were issues about normativity.<br> <dael> florian: Snapshot won't get to rec so even if normative we don't solve it. Let's put it into something that is stable.<br> <dael> florian: chrisL agreed in github<br> <dael> Rossen_: Objections?<br> <dael> RESOLVED: Push boilerplate to the end of documents<br> <tantek> that sounds like a reasonable solution<br> <dael> florian: Next is that at some point we said various entries in propdef aren't anywhere and we said we should do in snapshot. Now they're mostly not in snapshot. canonical order and applies to line are all t hat's left. Cannonical should go to OM and applies to should go to cascade.<br> <dael> fantasai: Sounds great<br> <dbaron> yes, sounds good<br> <dael> florian: Once we do that there's no reason to have them in snapshot.<br> <dael> Rossen_: Other opinions?<br> <dael> Rossen_: oBjections?<br> <dael> RESOLVED: Cannonical propdef should go to OM and applies to propdef should go to cascade.<br> <dael> florian: Shortname<br> <dael> florian: We got into the habit of having a different shortname every time we publish snapshot. I think we should switch to having a shortname and republish and let usual process of dated drafts.<br> <dael> florian: There were +1s on GH<br> <dael> fantasai: We did it as separate so it was a replacement for levels of CSS. So it would be possible to refer to a set of CSS specs published as a snapshot. So you could go back and fix t hat doc. If it's single stream you c an't do that because updating changes date.<br> <dael> florian: What updates did you invision?<br> <dael> fantasai: Generally we find problems with a draft and we should fix. Be it typos or bad wording. We could fix it.<br> <dael> fantasai: Or we added a propdef table of all properties in a snapshot you could regenerate all of them and go back and see what properties were in each snapshot<br> <dael> fantasai: But if we're doing dated we can never add it to older.<br> <dael> florian: That sounds true.<br> <dael> florian: Flip side I don't think we've ever done that and this makes it harder to update.<br> <dael> fantasai: If issue is about doing publication process, I can take it over. It only takes an hour.<br> <dael> florian: I'm okay with either, but if it look 3 minutes we'd do it more often.<br> <dael> fantasai: I think the hold up is there's edits that aren't done. Publication is pretty straight forward.<br> <dael> florian: I'm okaya with dropping this request. I can try and convince you later, but no need today<br> <dael> florian: I've got the resolutions I wanted<br> <fantasai> tantek, someday fwpd will also be automated, and that'll solve that problem<br> <tantek> thanks Rossen_<br> <dael> Rossen_: Thanks for joining. We'll pick up remaining items next week. Please add TPAC topics if you haven't.<br> <tantek> "solve" :) we have different definitions<br> <Rossen_> trackbot, end meeting<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1867#issuecomment-428651127 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2018 17:01:36 UTC