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

CSS 2 maintenance

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 13:51:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHKdfMiXL_nn4fvs6YaO9E1j-9S+P2SXSU0OJW0G4dig8Ra5ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Cc: Peter Linss <peter@linss.com>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>

Three points on CSS2:


As I opened an issue about
(https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1335), we have three
copies of CSS2 in the repo, which seems awkward, especially giving
copying things between them is awkward. I don't see any reason we need
three copies—we certainly don't have multiple confusingly named copies
for anything else!

If I'm not mistaken, we have:

 * css21: the current CSS 2.1 REC in ED form
 * css2: an ED of CSS 2.1 2nd Edition (as I believe we resolved to call it?)
 * css2-testing: an ED of CSS 2.1 nth Edition (I don't believe we
resolved any name for the spec that is the latest edition of CSS 2.1
with all errata incorporated?)

Can we rename these directory names to clarify this? Maybe css21-1e,
css21-2e, css21-latest-with-errata?

On drafts.csswg.org, we have "CSS 2.1" (css21), "CSS2.2" (css2), and
everything in css2-testing appears at the bottom as unknown. Peter,
can you add css2-testing so its known (or whatever we rename it to)?

There's also a css2-src directory containing only a 2011 LC DoC; if we
follow habits elsewhere that should live alongside the spec (therefore
in css21). Can we move that?

As a slight aside, why are we using directories for different versions
in general?  It makes copying things awkward (you have to apply
patches manually with path pruning); it'd seem far more sensible to
use git branches, especially in cases like this where we expect to
frequently copy between css2-testing and css2, and then we can use all
the tooling git has to deal with multiple versions of a file.

In principle, based on what was agreed before, the copy in css2 should
have a subset of changes from css21 applied to css2-testing, but it
has a number of substantial changes that have been made to it and only
it, for example syndata.src has been replaced with links to Level 3 in
css2 but not css2-testing. This makes it hard to review what's changed
relative to the current REC, and what is currently stable. I was
assuming we'd only cherry-pick commits into the "stable" branch once
we had tests and two passing implementations, given the goal of
getting it to REC ASAP, and obviously normative references to Syntax
Level 3 don't meet that requirement.


Presently, we have built HTML output of each of the three editions of
CSS 2.1 committed into the source tree, unlike what we do with every
other spec currently being worked on. I believe this relies on
server-side support to build the specs; would it be possible to add
support for the CSS 2 build system there so we don't have to have them
all in the source tree? They are seemingly perpetually out of date!
Trying to build locally, all three copies seem to be out of date. I
believe all that's needed is `make css2.tgz` and then expand that,
with `Overview.html` as the index page?


Does it make sense to add a new editor to CSS 2.1? Several of the
oldest "Needs Edit" labelled issues are in CSS 2.1, and progress at
getting a 2nd Edition to REC is, AFAIK, entirely blocked on the

I would, in principle, be happy to spend some time on trying to tidy
up the different copies of the spec and try and get 2nd Edition into a
point where we can publish a CR of it. That said, while I'm happy to
do this on the basis that there are relatively few edits needed to CSS
2.1 on a general basis, there are limits as to how much time I can
spend on it while not being paid for it!

Received on Thursday, 25 May 2017 12:00:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:07 UTC