- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 23:05:07 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
In addition to any discussion about which specs need to be upgraded to a more stable status, is it worth having a discussion about how we can make this document more useful? This thought inspired by two recent things… - [Bruce Lawson on Twitter](https://twitter.com/brucel/status/1224754437920579590) asking if a single document exists with basic summary table of all CSS properties. It would definitely be nice if CSS published a single reference table of syntax, initial value, and so on, that could be used by people wanting to quickly scrape a machine-readable definition of CSS. Especially if it was annotated by “experimental” vs “stable”. - [Chris Coyier on CSS-Tricks](https://css-tricks.com/css4/) talking about the marketing potential of having a single, clear name and definition (like “CSS3”) for what's new in CSS. The abstract of the [current snapshot](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-2018/) mentions: > The primary audience is CSS implementers, not CSS authors, as this definition includes modules by specification stability, not Web browser adoption rate. But now that we have automatic widgets for summing up test results, could that be added? At least for the stable specs, where we are confident that the tests exist — it might confuse matters if we included test pass rates for specs where we know the test suites are incomplete. -- GitHub Notification of comment by AmeliaBR Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4715#issuecomment-582159148 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2020 23:05:10 UTC