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

> On 05 Feb 2015, at 00:00, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
>>> On 04 Feb 2015, at 20:50, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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).
> 
> Yeah, you've just described the snapshot.

The thing is, if we maintain CSS2.x and the snapshot, it seems to be that they'll be converging in content and purpose, so I am wondering if they should (eventually) merge.

For now, CSS2.x has normative prose, and a nice intro to the language () which and the snapshot doesn't. The snapshot has links to mature specs other than 2.1, which 2.1 doesn't do.

But as we maintain both, the number of CSS2.x sections superseded by something will grow. Then, one of the following happens to CSS2.many:
a - It's full of irrelevant text (because we left it there)
b - It shrinks until there's only the intro there (because we deleted all the superseded stuff)
c - It shrinks until there's only an intro, section headers and pointers to newer specs.

I think 'a' is bad.
If we get to 'b', we might as well inline the intro into the snapshot.
If we get to 'c', CSS2.many and the snapshot will be mostly the same thing, except the snapshot will also have links to modules that are additions (not just replacements), while CSS2.many will have a nicer intro. At which point it feels like they should merge.

I am not saying we need to merge them both *now*, but it seems that the long term trend is for this two things to get increasingly similar, and we should probably consider their evolution together.

Or am I wrong, and to we expect that some normative parts of 2.1 will never be replaced, and that we won't get into the scenario where 2.x shrinks to just the introduction (+links)?

 - Florian

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 09:56:38 UTC