[csswg-drafts] [css-2020] Should cascade 3 and 4 both be in the snapshot? (#5111)

frivoal has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [css-2020] Should cascade 3 and 4 both be in the snapshot? ==
(Following up form https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4715#issuecomment-629066522, as that's a bit of a separate topic from the overall 4715 issue).

In https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4715, we agreed to include cascade 4 in the snapshot. Cascade-3 is already there though.

I don't think anything in cascade 3 is wrong, but it is a little confusing to list both as being the official definition.

Should we just drop cascade 3 from the snapshot?  Should we move it to a (newly created) section that lists specs that are stable and correct, but retired due to being superseded by newer ones?

That sort of seems useful, to distinguish such specs from other old RECs which are unmaintained and wrong. People should be reading cascade-4, but they're not going to run into problems if they read cascade-3. On the other hand, the same isn't true about reading CSS2.0 instead of CSS2.1.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5111 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2020 06:04:04 UTC