Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2008”N09ŒŽ17“ú

• From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
• Date: 2008”N10ŒŽ20“ú 20:26:30 +0200
• To: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <68DE3847-64F1-4A08-BEAB-5B0B83121BCF@crissov.de>

Sorry, I'm late on this, just read through a huge pile of emails.
fantasai:
> - RESOLVED: No change to section numbering in css3-color
>
> CSS3 Color
> ----------
>
> David: Issue 2
> ... There's a request to restructure the TOC.
> ... There's an advantage to keeping the current numbering because 
> people
> have been using it for years.
> ... On the other hand the spec could benefit from some reorg.
 ...
> Anne: I think it's best to keep as is; we can reorg in level 4 as 
> necessary.
 ...
> David: My tendency is to keep it pretty much as is.
> Daniel: Yes, let's keep it as is and move things around for CSS4.
> RESOLVED: No change to section ordering.
I honestly cannot believe it! I'm really disappointed and not because 
it was my proposal. Is the CSS 3 _REC_ really considered just another 
draft of the CSS 4 REC?
Text structure may of course seem unimportant compared to the 
technical correctness of the prose, but if you want people other than 
the specificators to read the specifications you should make them 
readable.
It's all about making the spec understandable. Nobody except the 
editors has read it often enough to somehow rely on the evolutional 
structure or section numbers. Even if, "it's always been this way, 
people are used to it" never is a valid argument when it's the sole 
reason to keep something.
This is a precedent. Other modules are structured just as badly for 
the same, historic reasons -- and when you don't change it as soon as 
you can you probably never will.

Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 18:26:53 UTC