W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2015

Re: [CSS21] Ambiguity in tokenizer, "normative appendix G"

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 20:44:23 +0100
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5BC70A6D-A55A-43C5-A060-0EE3CBACF54E@rivoal.net>
To: Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com>

> On 04 Feb 2015, at 18:29, Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Maybe,
> If we decide to remove the content, I don't think we should remove the section headings. The headings are useful for other references we haven't removed from the spec. We would have to put in proper notes directing people to newer specs in the relevant sections but I think that is fairly easy to accomplish. 

Oh, yes, absolutely. Sorry for not being clear about this, but my mental model of removing parts that have been superseded definitely included leaving the section titles in.

> This will allow CSS2.2 to remain our foundation spec since all the relevant sections are still there just some pointing off to other locations. Also if we follow this pattern, over time CSS 2.2 then CSS 2.3, etc... may make all the sections just a bunch of references. We then can call that document a CSS3 spec, encompassing all the new specs. This then becomes our new foundational spec to build upon.

It would end up with *an intro* and a bunch of references, which is quite a useful thing to have. Not sure I'd call it CSS3, since it would probably end up pointing to things at different levels, but I'm sure we can deal with one more bikesheding opportunity.
> 
>> 
>> "CSS2.2 = CSS2.1 + errata" is already useful, but
>> "CSS2.2 = CSS2.1 + errata - superseded_parts" is even better and will lead to
>> a lot less confusion. Publishing a new spec with parts that should be ignored
>> seems unfriendly to most readers.
>> 
>> I realize that quite a few things that supersede CSS2.1 are not yet at REC, and
>> this does complicate things a bit. But at the very least, we should be able to
>> add notes pointing to the newer things, and maybe we can do even better
>> than that.
>> 
> 
> Personally I don't believe we should point to anything that isn't a REC or isn't part of the snapshot (we need a new one of these). The CSS2.1 spec is the foundation that we have been building off of. I think CSS 2.2 should remain that foundation even if it has references to other documents.

Well, an informative note saying "there is a Work In Progress document <a>over there</a> which intends to eventually replace this section, although it is not yet in a stage where it can" could be useful, since there are quite a few things that aren't REC, but are still worth knowing about if you're going to go implement something.

 - Florian
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 19:44:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:01 UTC