- From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:06:35 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
If each level of a module was fully completed before starting the next one, that would indeed be a good idea. However, different levels are typically developed in parallel. So you can find that `css-foo-3` is very stable and widely implemented, but not yet 100% interoperable; while `css-foo-4` is in active development but still has a ton of open issues, and `css-foo-5` is basically rough notes and ideas. So the notion of "latest" is complicated. To help with this, more recent specifications have a "history" link, for example [this one for `css-values-3`](https://www.w3.org/standards/history/css-values-3/) which also has links to the [history for `css-values-4`](https://www.w3.org/standards/history/css-values-4/). And there is no history link for `css-values-5` because it hasn't ever been published to the TR (Technical Reports) page. In fact the [editor's draft of `css-values-5`](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-5/) omits all of `css-values-4` and just has a few ideas for how to extend it. So hopefully you can see that making `css-values-3` and `css-values-4` redirect to `css-values-5` would not be the right thing to do at all. -- GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9777#issuecomment-1883986646 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2024 00:06:38 UTC