- 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>
> 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. Thanks, Alan
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2017 03:55:00 UTC