Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[css-backgrounds-3][css-box-3][css-color-3][css-fonts-3][css-page-4][css-speech-1][css-style-attr-1][mediaqueries-3][selectors-3][web-animations-css-integration] Convert specs to Bikeshed #251

Closed
3 of 9 tasks
SebastianZ opened this issue Jun 29, 2016 · 13 comments
Assignees

Comments

@SebastianZ
Copy link
Contributor

SebastianZ commented Jun 29, 2016

There are several specifications, which currently use an older preprocessor to generate the document. These specifications should be converted to use Bikeshed instead. This includes:


Recs (probably useful just to get consistent dfn markup):

Note that I didn't include WG Notes and the CSS snapshots. If considered valuable, those should be added to the list. I did add CSS Color 3, CSS Style Attributes 1, Media Queries 3 and Selectors 3 even when they are already recommendations, because I expect they may still get some formal changes.

Sebastian

@tabatkins
Copy link
Member

Box is a dead spec, so I'm removing it from the list.

@plinss
Copy link
Member

plinss commented Jun 29, 2016

Several of the others are RECs, so it's unclear if we want to port the drafts to Bikeshed or not at this point. If there have been significant changes the we should consider issuing a PER, but then a Bikeshed conversion may introduce too many changes? (though it would be nice for all the link/dfn markup to be consistent and functional...)

@fantasai
Copy link
Collaborator

fantasai commented Jul 5, 2016

The current W3C Process requires a PER even for editorial (or even markup) changes:
https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#rec-modify
This is a regression from the previous W3C Process:
https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-modify
Analysis of the change (checked in as “editorial”) and request to revert (not addressed):
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0143.html
Maybe Tantek can sort this out so we can update the RECs without superfluous nonsense. :)

@xfq
Copy link
Member

xfq commented Mar 31, 2017

The new W3C Process now allows Edited Recommendations to incorporate editorial changes without AC review: https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#rec-modify

@svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor

I don't see the value for porting Color 3. Color 4 is in bikeshed and defines everything Color 3 does plus the new stuff.

@plinss
Copy link
Member

plinss commented Sep 13, 2017

The main value in porting older specs is for linking. Shepherd's spec parser has some fairly effective heuristics for determining anchors types, but bikeshed generates unambiguous anchor data, so the spec will be easier (and more accurate) to link to (and easier for non-shepherd tooling to parse the spec). Second, having a bikeshed source on the draft server allows it to play in the continuous integration and keeps all links to other specs up to date. This obviously doesn't help RECs or anything on TR. Color 3 can benefit if other specs still link to it or if it links to other specs, judgement call.

@Loirooriol
Copy link
Contributor

CSS Page 4 has been done in 1f0341f and 6ad91d9.

@svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor

Color 3 can benefit if other specs still link to it

They shouldn't; Color 4 is the official definition since CSS Snapshot 2022

@svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor

For CSS Fonts 3, all of which is replaced by CSS Fonts 4, I would rather put the effort into closing off all the Fonts 4 I18n issues, dealing with the long-running Fonts 4 fingerprinting issue so that we can complete horizontal review, get to CR, and update Snapshot 2023 with Fonts 4 as the official definition.

@svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor

svgeesus commented Mar 8, 2024

Similarly for the Selectors 3 Rec from 2018 then rather than adding errata to that or publishing an update with a bikeshed conversion, effort should focus on Selectors 4 which is still a WD and last published to /TR on 11 Nov 2022

@svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor

svgeesus commented Mar 8, 2024

Web Animations CSS Integration has an ED from 2015 and has never been published to /TR so that seems pretty dead to me. Perhaps it should be retired?

@birtles
Copy link
Contributor

birtles commented Mar 11, 2024

Web Animations CSS Integration has an ED from 2015 and has never been published to /TR so that seems pretty dead to me. Perhaps it should be retired?

Yes, I think everything in that spec that is relevant is now incorporated in CSS Animations Level 2 and CSS Transitions Level 2.

@svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor

MQ3 is a Rec and all new work is in MQ4.

Style Attr has one change since the Nov 2013 Rec but is short enough that either a bikeshed conversion or just editing the generated html is fairly easy.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

10 participants