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: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 13:10:57 +0900
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <46729688-7FE5-42F9-8506-DCB13C7C3939@rivoal.net>
To: Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com>

> On 06 Feb 2015, at 00:21, Arron Eicholz <arronei@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I am also not really against a merging in the future if we see more of a need for it. I just am not seeing it right now or in the near future.

Neither am I. But I think our decision to leave superseded text in CSS2.x, or just keep headlines and pointers, or remove it altogether could be informed by what we'd like to do when we get to the merge point.

>> 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.
> 'a' is bad for sure.
> 'b' isn't quite right either. The snapshot is a note containing specs that are finished (REC) or are stable enough for authors to really use without too many more changes or interoperability problems.

Once CSS2.x is gutted to the point of containing only it's intro (which I agree is still a while off), I am not sure it is reasonable to keep calling that spec CSS2.x. But the intro (or a modernized version of it) is is a valuable thing, and to the extent that the snapshot is the hub that tells you where to find the bits that make up CSS, having the intro there doesn't sound crazy to me.

 - Florian
Received on Saturday, 7 February 2015 04:11:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:51 UTC