Re: Names of CSS specifications

On Tuesday 2009-01-20 13:47 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> It seems we are not that consistent in naming our specifications. Do we  
> care about fixing this? http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work.html is  
> also not consistent with specifications.
>
> E.g.
>
>   CSS3 Module: Fonts
>   CSS Color Module Level 3
>   CSS Text Level 3
>   CSS Namespaces Module
>   CSS3 Basic User Interface Module
>
> are all different in style.

One difference is that the first and last are considerably older
than the other three.  In particular, we discussed modularization in
May 2006 when we decided that the modules can progress
independently (minuted at [1], member-only).

The middle three seem largely consistent.  Namespaces in in fact
substantively different from the others in that the features it
defines are new.

> Now it might be that http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work.html  
> suggests consistent names for these in the table fantasai made though 
> even there I find CSSOM View Module where none of the other names have 
> Module in them.

I think these may well have been intended to be the new names used.

-David

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2006AprJun/0111.html

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/

Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 16:25:13 UTC