Open gsnedders opened 6 years ago
@gsnedders @fantasai and I worked on this effort to restart CSS2.x editing & publishing with a formal but efficient workflow during the current (Berlin) CSSWG meeting and we’re pretty sure we can make this work (@gsnedders helping with the restart, build system, and testing, and initially @fantasai and myself as editors), and it's the most efficient we can do this given goals and current W3C process / patent policy constraints.
This is intended to supersede all decisions/resolutions at the past Seattle f2f where the WG last discussed CSS2.x workflow.
Please take a look at the gist and thumbs-up, or add questions / comments / suggested improvements accordingly. Assuming the WG approves this proposed workflow I’d like to document it in a README in the css2 directory https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/tree/master/css2 so its easily discoverable and we can tweak/iterate as needed while actively using it.
Thanks!
Tantek
cc: @astearns @atanassov
(Originally published at: http://tantek.com/2018/102/t2/)
The Working Group just discussed Proposed CSS 2.x editing & publishing workflow
, and agreed to the following resolutions:
RESOLVED: Accept this new editing process
We should add something based on the above gist as a README.md in css2/.
CSS2 maintenance proposal
Some background:
In TR space, we currently have http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607 and https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-CSS22-20160412/.
The former of these is the current CSS 2.1 REC, which was edited-in-place in April 2016 (literally "in place"; the old 2011 dated URL serves the 2016 edition, the only way to view the 2011 spec is on Internet Archive Wayback Machine). The 2016 edition has a number of edits in addition to adding the warning boxes which I believe was meant to be the only change.
The latter is a FPWD of "CSS 2.2" also published April 2016 incorporating all errata and some other editorial changes. Note that this predates the Seattle F2F resolution from January 2017 as to how we were going to CSS 2 maintenance.
In csswg-drafts, we have two copies:
"css2" which is essentially the "CSS 2.2" with further edits, including renaming it to "Preview of the next revision of Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 (CSS 2.x)" and turning it into a NOTE (this is roughly what is implied by the Seattle F2F resolution).
"css21" which is pretty much the current edited-in-place CSS 2.1 REC.
There's some concern about the current beyond-CSS-2.1-REC drafts as to whether they match the consensus of the group, and whether some "editorial" changes are actually that.
Generally, mine and @tantek's proposal is:
We have a single copy of CSS 2.1 in the repo.
We make purely editorial changes directly to the spec.
We make substantive changes as informative delta notes in the spec (because we want everyone looking at the current spec with all errata, and this matches the "best practice" suggested in the Process).
When we go to CR, we replace all the informative delta notes with identical "at risk" text, or replace the existing normative text if a note already has two interoperable implementations.
When we go to PR, we drop any "at risk" text without two implementations, or replace the existing normative text if the "at risk" text already has two interoperable implementations.
Semi-regular CR publishing schedule, like quarterly/seasonally, perhaps coincident with F2Fs, with PR/ER follow per Process time periods.
I suggest:
We need to:
Get down to a single copy of CSS 2.1 in the repo.
Get /TR/CSS22/ to redirect to /TR/CSS21/ (or maybe the latest CR).
I would personally like to alter the build system to put the built output in a separate directory rather than it mixing it in with the source files.
Get Travis CI or similar building CSS 2.1 to ensure we keep the checked in built copy up to date (this is needed because the below item might not happen for a while).
Get drafts.csswg.org building the spec and remove the built copy from git.
Go through the current errata document and, having made sure they match the WG resolution, add them to the new draft.
Go through WG minutes and make sure all RESOLUTIONs/ACTIONs affecting CSS 2.1 have open GitHub issues. (Please help!)
Start going through all the open GitHub issues.
Open questions:
Should we add scientific notation to CSS 2.1? (#2542)
Syntax section readded despite WG resolution (#2224)
Naming of revision of CSS 2.1 (#2008)
Anchors changed in CSS 2 in-place edit in 2016 (#2551)
Use only [css2] and label:css2 on GitHub? (mv label:css22 -> label:css2, [css22] -> [css2], [css21] -> [css2])
Sketch of the flow described above: