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 21:03:12 +0100
Cc: Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D199D4F2-AA69-4D71-BB71-ACA1E71E09D2@rivoal.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

> On 04 Feb 2015, at 20:50, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> It's quite easy to trace the execution of the spec's tokenizer.  In
>>>> particular, "consume an ident-like token" will eat the `url(`, then
>>>> send you down the "consume a url token" algo, which immediately hits
>>>> the EOF and returns a (valid) url token with an empty url.
>>> 
>>> Should we remove from 2.2 all the sections that have been superseded?
>> 
>> No, Maybe... (as you can tell I am on the fence here)
>> 
>> No,
>> Having an all-encompassing foundational spec is useful in some cases. CSS 2.1 is a foundation for all the browsers and all the new specs, I think it is good to keep it as complete as possible.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> I don't think this is or should be our goal at all.  The number of
> Level 1 specs suggests that CSS is far wider than the CSS2 base we're
> still building off of.

Calling it CSS 3 sounds wrong, but if we start including links to the (sufficiently mature) level 1 modules, it's a good document tying together all the mature parts of CSS, and giving an intro to the whole.

At the same time, I am not what the difference is between that and the snapshot (assuming we maintain it).

 - Florian
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 20:03:36 UTC

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