Move html-beautify and css-beautify to separate repository

[bitwiseman]

Another issue from the discussion in #193. Since html and css is beautification is in js only and much less mature and with different command line options, it might be better to split them off in to a separate project. This is different from #176, which suggested splitting out python version of js beautification.

[jdavisclark]

I'll throw my support in. It really doesn't make sense for them to be in the same repo. If you guys want to keep all the maintained projects together somehow, it might make the most sense to create a jsbeautifier.org organization and migrate everything over there as seperate repositories.

[bitwiseman]

As a gateway to doing this, I've created an organization: https://github.com/orgs/beautify-web . If we choose to go this route, we at least have a sensibly named organization into which we could put the projects. @einars, @evocateur: Any thoughts on this?

[evocateur]

Seems reasonable, naming things is hard.

[einars]

I like it, it's kind of like a designer's statement :)

[bitwiseman]

And you're both also co-owners of it. 😄

I meant, what do you think of moving the different beautifiers in to separate repositories but with an organization as the owner of them so that they stay grouped together?

[einars]

I'm all for that, the need for separating the beautifiers is ripe, and I don't have any bike-sheds to paint here — if you have a plan in the head and an urge, then I say go ahead. Sadly, I don't see how I can be of much help here, as I'm quite a bit out of the loop.

[bitwiseman]

👍 for real-time chat/hackathon to complete the separation, just not sure of the timing.

[adius]

This should definitely happen!

[wtgtybhertgeghgtwtg]

I can create packages for html-beautify and css-beautify and transfer ownership, if that would help.

[bitwiseman]

We've gone in a different direction. Optimizing for a minimal package is not in scope.