- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:31:35 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
L. David Baron wrote: > 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. It is as dbaron says. We have a resolution to use the names in the current-work table going forward, with the addition of "Module": http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2007JulSep/0114.html | CSS Module Naming | ----------------- | | Christoph Päper noticed that our naming is rather inconsistent. | fantasai proposes using the names in the table at | http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work | RESOLVED use names in current-work, except add "Module", | e.g."CSS Foo Module Level 3" ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 21:32:19 UTC