search

w3c / csswg-drafts

CSS Working Group Editor Drafts
https://drafts.csswg.org/
Other
4.42k stars 649 forks source link

CSS2 next edition naming #4847

Open gsnedders opened 4 years ago

gsnedders commented 4 years ago

We previously resolved to call the next version of CSS2 "CSS 2.2".

From more recent discussions with several people in the group, it seems like there's still a sizeable number who are in favour of "CSS 2.1 2nd Edition" (or similar). The two main reasons for this:

Crissov commented 4 years ago

The full name is Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Revision 1. Why should this be blown up further into something like Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Revision 1, 2nd Edition when it just gets revised further? Anyway, the discussion in #4770 is related.

SelenIT commented 4 years ago

Could we please keep 2.2?

tabatkins commented 4 years ago

I suggest "CSS 2.1 Turbo Edition"

Crissov commented 4 years ago

Decennial revisions:

gsnedders commented 4 years ago

The full name is Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Revision 1. Why should this be blown up further into something like Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Revision 1, 2nd Edition when it just gets revised further?

Essentially nobody calls it by its full name, though. Even within the WG the full name essentially doesn't exist. I won't disagree it seems silly in its complete form, but I'm much more concerned about people looking at 2.1 after 2.whatever gets published because of references to CSS 2.1. Arguably where we went wrong was including ".1" in the obvious name of a spec for level 2 in the first place. 🙃

I suggest "CSS 2.1 Turbo Edition"

Gotta go fast.

SelenIT commented 4 years ago

I'm much more concerned about people looking at 2.1 after 2.whatever gets published because of references to CSS 2.1

Wouldn't the warning message added above the 2.1 document and referencing the newer edition be enough to prevent the confusion? I'd say it will. Also, there is already such a message at https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/, and it already mentions 2.2 as the next revision.

fantasai commented 4 years ago

@SelenIT Trying to figure out how to update CSS2 has been a bit of a mess, due to restrictions in the W3C Process. So at one point we had published an FPWD of 2.2 with the intention of driving it through the whole FPWD->WD->CR->REC process. But it makes more sense to amend CSS2.1 in place as a REC (and Process 2020 will make this a lot easier). So I'm with @gsnedders for all the reasons he mentioned, and also because it's no longer a new shortname, it's just updating CSS2 in place.

keikoro commented 6 months ago

Sorry for butting in, but I've come here in search of more information about Revision 2 after coming across the warning message that was mentioned up-thread:

Also, there is already such a message at https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/, and it already mentions 2.2 as the next revision.

When I saw that message, I got confused because I was under the impression that CSS version 3 was what's being worked on at this point in time. I then discovered the W3C's CSS home page contains a number of tables which help understand the CSS development process a bit better. Neat!

However, Revision 2 is nowhere to be found there... under the name "Revision 2", that is. When Revision 1 is clearly labelled as such. I actually began writing this comment before realising that the Revision 2 document document linked to from the warning message is in fact included. Just under a different name, "Preview of CSS Level 2" (in the "Abandoned" table). Which is not what I was looking for, or would have looked for.

What I originally was going to say still applies, though: to the casual user it remains a mystery if Revision 2 (or CSS2 overall) is still a thing; if that document is a work in progress or its final form. It says it's from 2016, but the warning message concludes with: "The CSS Working Group is also developing [Revision 2]" (emphasis mine), which suggests it is still under development. But the warning message itself looks, well, let's say a bit "old-schoolish", which doesn't help shed any light on the situation either.

keikoro commented 6 months ago

... To add to the original discussion, even if it's not really clear to me why CSS 2.2 was (still? again?) being discussed as a "new" name in 2018 and 2020, respectively, when that document from 2016 was already called that:

Am I understanding correctly that there were – or are – plans to continue working on CSS2 under the name CSS 2.1, which is an alias for Revision 1, despite the existence of CSS 2.2 aka Revision 2? Because that sounds like a terrible idea from a versioning standpoint.

A follow-up to a version 2.2 would be exptected to be named something like 2.2.x or 2.3 by anyone familiar with versioning. How are people supposed to know that 2.2 should be disregarded and that they need to "go back" to 2.1 when it isn't plastered all over everything to do with 2.2?

frivoal commented 5 months ago

Without answering the question directly, I think it's fair to point out that efforts to maintain CSS2.1 are currently stalled. There's a lot of good work going on in new specifications, but for a variety of reasons (more organizational than technical), previous attempts to published a bug-fixed version of CSS2.1 did not succeed.