Re: [csswg-drafts] [meta] Creating an author-focused entry point summarizing the state of CSS (#4752)

To me, making the CSS snapshot more useful/valuable for authors seems a great idea, for the following reasons:

- The latest snapshot has the short and memorable URL (w3.org/TR/CSS), suggesting that this must be the latest "CSS in general" specification (similarly with w3.org/TR/HTML being the latest HTML spec, currently redirecting to Living Standard, w3.org/TR/SVG being the latest SVG spec, currently SVG2, and so on);
- Many beginners seem to have problems with the concept of independently progressing spec modules;
- People often get into confusion trying to find the "single source of truth" for some particular aspect of CSS (e.g., which one of two same-status modules with exactly the same publication date – css-cascade-3 and css-cascade-4 – should be considered "the true one");
- People often ask for some clear way to tell the modern stuff apart from both "too old" and "too new" (e.g. when deciding where to send bug reports – to browser vendors or to spec editors);
- The spec statuses alone are not always informative enough. E.g., having the spec that already was in CR and has been implemented in all browsers with no prefixes/flags for years (like CSS-multicol-1) in the same WD status as some early stage proposal often lead people to the false conclusion that they both are equally "new and experimental";
- Calling _everything_ after CSS2 "just CSS", as some suggest, doesn't address these issues and seems to broad to be useful;
- The concept of the yearly updated snapshot of the language standard incorporating all the features considered "ready" to date (where "ready" doesn't necessarily mean "is supported by all browsers"!) is already familiar to most web authors from the EcmaScript standard (ES2015, ES2016, and so on).

At first glance, the CSS Snapshot (even "as is") seems to address these issues well. It provides clear criteria for comparing the "readiness" of same-status specs (if the spec is _in the Official Definition of CSS_, it must be ready), it explicitly excludes outdated _parts_ of the spec (CSS2.1) that are replaced with newer modules, and it explains the reason why some separate features can be considered "ready enough" despite the specs they belong to are not ready yet (the "Safe to Release pre-CR Exceptions" section).

Tracking the implementation status doesn't seem a hard problem to me. Adding a dropdown caniuse widget (like [here](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade/#all-shorthand)) would be enough, IMHO. Also, I believe that it could be useful to indicate in the "Notes" column on the "Current work" page which Snapshot was that spec added to (or, at least, to mark there the specs that are part of the latest snapshot) – it should make it much easier to grasp the current state of the CSS evolution.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by SelenIT
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4752#issuecomment-583364145 using your GitHub account

Received on Friday, 7 February 2020 12:09:54 UTC