Open gsnedders opened 6 years ago
I would assume that pre-2016 links into CSS 2.x would be more numerous and that not many would have been updated to the post-2016 ones.
There are likely 100x (if not more) links to CSS2.x fragment links from before 2016 than after, and thus it makes a lot more sense to restore the 2011 REC fragment anchors to keep more fragment links working on the web, especially those that were referencing /TR/CSS2/somepage.html#somefragment or /TR/CSS21/somepage.html#somefragment which redirect to the latest version.
PROPOSED: Restore fragment identifiers in CSS2.x to those in the CSS2.1 REC published in 2011.
(Originally published at: http://tantek.com/2018/102/t4/)
It's also possible to have both sets of anchors my adding wrapper elements. (I've done this for animations and transitions specs, where the old anchor names were pretty awful in some cases.) Maybe too much work, though.
The Working Group just discussed Anchors changed in CSS 2 in-place edit in 2016
, and agreed to the following resolutions:
RESOLVED: take current draft and revert to 2011 anchors.
RESOLVED: take dated 2011 rec and revert link changes.
RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/TR/TR/2016/REC-CSS2-20160412/ is what is currently at http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 and /TR/CSS2/ redirects to http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 and ChrisL may add a warning note about the 2016 links as he sees necessary
So it turns out I'd got lost in far too many lines of diff to realise how little actually changed: the only thing that actually changed is the anchors of <h1>
elements in each page and all of the changes.
My previous comment was wrong: all headers without explicit name/ids changed. It just happened that this is only the h1
elements of each page and every change in the App. C Changes and App G.4.
Just so I'm clear, because I'm not any more, "RESOLVED: take dated 2011 rec and revert link changes", meant replacing https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/ with… what? the 2016 edited-in-place version but with the old links?
I think having since managed to pull off https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/b11694edb816c5d1fb935dbc3dfd377a5c7cb312, we should revisit the above resolutions and do one of:
Given it is plausible to add both anchors after all, I think the former is probably the easier and more reasonable option (especially given it means we don't need to get permission to create a new 2016 URL to publish a document that complies with neither 2016 nor today's pubrules).
914790fe62140c5deb389ac3dfea7b128b860fa8 changed
almost alla few of the anchors in CSS 2.This is problematic because not only does it break all links pointing at https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/ or https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/ (which has pointed to drafts of CSS 2.1 since 2002), but also all links pointing at the supposedly stable https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/ given the 2016 edit was in-place.
The edit was made to avoid duplicate anchors in the non-normative PDF edition, but changed anchors everywhere.
We have two options here:
EDIT TO ADD TO-DO LIST