W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2016

Re: [CSS2] Proposed process for maintaining CSS2

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:33:51 +0900
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <6917E8B2-22BD-4351-B4BF-2B1E4545860F@rivoal.net>
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>

> On Dec 20, 2016, at 02:15, Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com> wrote:
> 
>> The rough and extremely outdated approximation of this is CSS2.1
>> REC and the CSS2.2 draft. What we need to do is have a way to
>> actually push the updates to CSS2.1 REC. I see two ways of doing
>> this within the W3C Process:
>> 
>>  Method 1:
>>    Periodically republish the two-implementations version of
>>      CSS2.1 as PER and have the AC approve it back to REC.
>>    Keep the WD of CSS2.2 updated as a perpetual "CSS2.1.Next".
> 
> Is there any reason why we can't call the WD "CSS 2.1 5th Edition"?

& 

> I'm strongly in favour of method 1, but without calling *anything* 2.2.
> Keeping everything called 2.1 makes it *very* clear that it is the
> version of 2.1 they should be looking at, and clarifies the questions
> Greg was asking on GitHub about maintaining testsuites. (IMO, it makes
> absolutely no sense to maintain a 2.1 and a 2.2 testsuite as we actively
> *do not want* people to implement 2.1.)

I support this, and there's precedent: https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/

–Florian
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2016 04:34:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:05 UTC