W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2018

Re: Retiring Obsolete CSS Notes

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 15:41:58 +0900
Message-Id: <2D6D898B-2B4A-49FB-BF71-43B95FC40DEE@rivoal.net>
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
To: Fuqiao Xue <xfq@w3.org>

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 15:39, Fuqiao Xue <xfq@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi Florian,
>> On Sep 7, 2018, at 2:36 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
>>> On Sep 7, 2018, at 13:16, Fuqiao Xue <xfq@w3.org> wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-06 23:49, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> PLH and I were talking about obsoleting and superseding stuff, and I
>>>> checked the status on the CSS-WG's Notes.
>>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/?tag=css&status=note
>>>> One that I was surprised to find there is the CSS  Profile
>>>> (https://www.w3.org/TR/css-print/). I thought we had retired it, along
>>>> with all other profiles, which are indeed no longer showing in that
>>>> index page.
>>>> I have not yet been able to locate the resolution where we decided to
>>>> do so, but the text in the 2018 CSS Snapshot ED (still pending
>>>> publication, sorry for procrastinating) agrees with my memory:
>>>>> 2.2. CSS Profiles
>>>>> Not all implementations will implement all functionality defined in CSS.
>>>>> In the past, the Working Group published a few Profiles, which were meant to define the minimal subset of CSS that various classes of User Agents were expected to support.
>>>>> This effort has been discontinued, as the Working Group was not finding it effective or useful, and the profiles previously defined are now unmaintained.
>>>> Did we carve out an exception that I'm failing to remember for the
>>>> Print Profile, or did it just slip through the cracks where we retired
>>>> the others?
>>>> Speaking of which, I'll note that other profiles
>>>> (https://www.w3.org/TR/css-mobile/ & https://www.w3.org/TR/css-tv/)
>>>> while correctly missing from the TR index page, do not carry any
>>>> indication inside the document that they are obsolete either.
>>>> Regardless of what happened previous, I think all 3 profiles should be
>>>> fully obsoleted.
>>> From the minutes[1] I guess it slipped through the cracks. All three specs' ED has obsoletion notes, but css-print's TR version does not have an obsoletion note.
>>> Moreover, in the "current work" page[2], CSS Print Profile is listed as "Com­pleted" rather than "Abandoned".
>> Seems to me that https://drafts.csswg.org/css-tv/ 's ED is also lacking the obsoletion notice. So we should add it, republish all 3 on TR to get the notice there, mark the Print Profile as Abandonned on the current work page, and exclude it from the TR index page.
> "At this time, the CSS Working Group does not envisage further work on this specification and does not plan to propose it as a W3C Recommendation."
> This sentence in the Status section looks like obsoletion notice to me. Are you suggesting that we need to make it clearer?

It seems to me that this does not really make a difference between complete work and obsolete work.

I'd suggest going for the same bold sentence found in the other two profiles's abstract:

> This profile is obsolete. Please see the latest CSS Snapshot <https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/> for the specifications that make up CSS.

Received on Friday, 7 September 2018 06:42:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:53:10 UTC