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

Re: [CSS2] Proposed process for maintaining CSS2

From: Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 23:30:57 -0500
Message-ID: <1486009857.30907.10.camel@w3.org>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
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 Thu, 2017-02-02 at 03:54 +0000, Alan Stearns wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 2017, at 5:18 PM, Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
> > 
[...]
> 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.

To be clear, there's no question of "taking a rec back to cr" at all.

The Recommendation stays as a recommendation unless the WG decides to
rescind it. You just get a time when there's a Rec and *also* a
proposed edited rec (or whatever) on /TR.

If you want people to review the changes and comment you have to accept
that yes, they might want changes that result in a republished CR, but
this isn't harder than republishing a working draft these days -
there's no transition call to go through or anything.

Under that process we'd presumably end up with CSS 2.2 Second Edition.

At any rate I'm not trying to push one method or another so much as to
make sure the options are made available for consideration.

Thanks

Liam



> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alan
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2017 04:31:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 2 February 2017 04:31:07 UTC