[csswg-drafts] [mediaqueries-3] Update REC (#6962)

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

== [mediaqueries-3] Update REC ==
As suggested in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6900#issuecomment-1011313466, we should republish MQ3. It used to be generated by the preprocessor we used to use before bikeshed, but that hadn't been run in years on that spec, and some of the edits has been made to the source, some to the output, so I've manually updated the .html file, and stopped using the .src.html.

I have now:
* synced up all the edits that had been done only to .src.html, and applied them to the .html
* discarded the .src.html, since nobody was generating from it and is was just a trap attracting edits into what was effectively /dev/null (and for the reason mentioned by @svgeesus in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6900#issuecomment-1012599035)
* Applied all the editorial changes that had been stashed in the [errata](https://www.w3.org/Style/2012/REC-mediaqueries-20120619-errata.html)
  * We may want to debate whether the [case insensitivity change of section 3](https://drafts.csswg.org/mediaqueries-3/#changes-2012) really is editorial, or should be turned into an candidate correction. I think it's editorial because it's merely observing that css, including mediaqueries, is ASCII case insensitive, and not prescribing it.
* Applied, as a [candidate correction](https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#candidate-correction) one of the two [normative errata](https://drafts.csswg.org/mediaqueries-3/#c1), but not the other, since it had been overturned by a [2015 resolution](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Aug/0051.html) (which has already made its way into MQ4 & 5, and is consistent with implementations)
* Updated the bibliography
* Written an updated change section
* Fixed up the markup and styling

So I think we're ready.

We may also want to consider whether we want to elevate the candidate correction to a proposed correction. I think we should, it's been stable for years, and has tests that are passed by all browsers, so there's no reason to hold back.

Either way, we should republish, and a WG resolution is enough for that. This issue is to ask for it.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6962 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2022 10:26:22 UTC