W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2017

Re: [CSS2] Proposed process for maintaining CSS2

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 03:54:21 +0000
To: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@w3.org>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <1AEB4ECA-823C-414C-8C73-3F1D55978451@adobe.com>

> On Feb 1, 2017, at 5:18 PM, Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 20:07 +0000, Alan Stearns wrote:
>> We’ve had several conversations about CSS2 maintenance recently. I’ve
>> added a summary of the current state of the proposal to the wiki:
>> https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/rec-maintenance

>> Please use this thread to discuss any changes or clarifications we
>> may need to make.
> Did you mean "this email thread" or "this wiki thread"?
> Well, either way, I added to the Wiki a note about the more usual
> approach of publishing a proposed edited recommendation (PER), which is
> just a candidate rec entitled PER, and which can be republished as a
> PER if there are substantive changes.

I meant the thread here, but capturing the discussion on the wiki is good, too. For those following along here, I added this response:

This is the method we want to use in the proposal below for those changes we know are ready for a quick CR. When we're not sure which changes will survive review and/or be adopted and testable, the problem is that the REC gets stuck in a republished CR cycle. I don't think it's good to take a REC back to CR for changes that haven't yet been vetted.


Received on Thursday, 2 February 2017 03:55:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:06 UTC