Skip to content

Commit 5d0bc3c

Browse files
fantasaifantasai
committed
[css-2015] Move some sections for more logical organization of the document.
1 parent a2f8eb9 commit 5d0bc3c

File tree

1 file changed

+75
-67
lines changed

1 file changed

+75
-67
lines changed

‎css-2015/Overview.bs

+75-67
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -59,6 +59,68 @@ Introduction {#intro}
5959
for any resulting changes, corrections, or clarifications.
6060

6161

62+
<h3 id="w3c-process">
63+
Background: The W3C Process and CSS</h3>
64+
65+
<em>This section is non-normative.</em>
66+
67+
In the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/">W3C Process</a>,
68+
a Recommendation-track document passes through three levels of stability,
69+
summarized below:
70+
71+
<dl>
72+
<dt>Working Draft (WD)
73+
<dd>
74+
75+
This is the design phase of a W3C spec.
76+
The WG iterates the spec in response to internal and external feedback.
77+
78+
The first official Working Draft is designated the “First Public Working Draft” (FPWD).
79+
In the CSSWG, publishing FPWD indicates that the Working Group as a whole has agreed to work on the module,
80+
roughly as scoped out and proposed in the editor's draft.
81+
82+
The transition to the next stage is sometimes called “Last Call Working Draft” (LCWD) phase.
83+
The CSSWG transitions Working Drafts once we have resolved all known issues,
84+
and can make no further progress without feedback from building tests and implementations.
85+
86+
This ”Last Call for Comments” sets a deadline for reporting any outstanding issues,
87+
and requires the WG to specially track and address incoming feedback.
88+
The comment-tracking document is the Disposition of Comments (DoC).
89+
It is submitted along with an updated draft for the Director's approval,
90+
to demonstrate wide review and acceptance.
91+
92+
<dt>Candidate Recommendation (CR)
93+
<dd>
94+
This is the testing phase of a W3C spec.
95+
Notably, this phase is about using tests and implementations to test the specification:
96+
it is not about testing the implementations.
97+
This process often reveals more problems with the spec,
98+
and so a Candidate Recommendation will morph over time in response to implementation and testing feedback,
99+
though usually less so than during the design phase (WD).
100+
101+
Demonstration of two correct, independent implementations of each feature is required to exit CR,
102+
so in this phase the WG builds a test suite and generates implementation reports.
103+
104+
The transition to the next stage is “Proposed Recommendation” (PR).
105+
During this phase the W3C Advisory Committee must approve the transition to REC.
106+
107+
<dt>Recommendation (REC)
108+
<dd>
109+
This is the completed state of a W3C spec and represents a maintainance phase.
110+
At this point the WG only maintains an errata document
111+
and occasionally publishes an updated edition that incorporates the errata back into the spec.
112+
</dl>
113+
114+
An <dfn export>Editor's Draft</dfn> is effectively a live copy of the editors’ own working copy.
115+
It may or may not reflect Working Group consensus,
116+
and can at times be in a self-inconsistent state.
117+
(Because the publishing process at W3C is time-consuming and onerous,
118+
the <a>Editor's Draft</a> is usually the best (most up-to-date) reference for a spec.
119+
Efforts are currently underway to reduce the friction of publishing,
120+
so that official drafts will be regularly up-to-date
121+
and <a>Editor's Drafts</a> can return to their original function as scratch space.)
122+
123+
62124
<h2 id="css">Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) &mdash; The Official Definition</h2>
63125

64126
As of 2015,
@@ -286,63 +348,22 @@ CSS Levels</h3>
286348
("CSS Level 3" as a term is used only to differentiate it from the previous monolithic versions.)
287349
</dl>
288350

289-
<h3 id="w3c-process">The W3C Process and CSS</h3>
290-
291-
In the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/">W3C Process</a>,
292-
a Recommendation-track document passes through three levels of stability,
293-
summarized below:
294-
295-
<dl>
296-
<dt>Working Draft (WD)
297-
<dd>
351+
<h3 id="profiles">
352+
CSS Profiles</h3>
298353

299-
This is the design phase of a W3C spec.
300-
The WG iterates the spec in response to internal and external feedback.
301-
302-
The first official Working Draft is designated the “First Public Working Draft” (FPWD).
303-
In the CSSWG, publishing FPWD indicates that the Working Group as a whole has agreed to work on the module,
304-
roughly as scoped out and proposed in the editor's draft.
305-
306-
The transition to the next stage is sometimes called “Last Call Working Draft” (LCWD) phase.
307-
The CSSWG transitions Working Drafts once we have resolved all known issues,
308-
and can make no further progress without feedback from building tests and implementations.
309-
310-
This ”Last Call for Comments” sets a deadline for reporting any outstanding issues,
311-
and requires the WG to specially track and address incoming feedback.
312-
The comment-tracking document is the Disposition of Comments (DoC).
313-
It is submitted along with an updated draft for the Director's approval,
314-
to demonstrate wide review and acceptance.
315-
316-
<dt>Candidate Recommendation (CR)
317-
<dd>
318-
This is the testing phase of a W3C spec.
319-
Notably, this phase is about using tests and implementations to test the specification:
320-
it is not about testing the implementations.
321-
This process often reveals more problems with the spec,
322-
and so a Candidate Recommendation will morph over time in response to implementation and testing feedback,
323-
though usually less so than during the design phase (WD).
324-
325-
Demonstration of two correct, independent implementations of each feature is required to exit CR,
326-
so in this phase the WG builds a test suite and generates implementation reports.
327-
328-
The transition to the next stage is “Proposed Recommendation” (PR).
329-
During this phase the W3C Advisory Committee must approve the transition to REC.
354+
Not all implementations will implement all functionality defined in CSS.
355+
For example, an implementation may choose to implement only the functionality required by a CSS Profile.
356+
Profiles define a subset of CSS considered fundamental for a specific class of CSS implementations.
357+
The W3C CSS Working Group defines the following CSS profiles:
330358

331-
<dt>Recommendation (REC)
332-
<dd>
333-
This is the completed state of a W3C spec and represents a maintainance phase.
334-
At this point the WG only maintains an errata document
335-
and occasionally publishes an updated edition that incorporates the errata back into the spec.
336-
</dl>
359+
<ul>
360+
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/css-mobile/">CSS Mobile Profile 2.0</a>
361+
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/css-print/">CSS Print Profile 1.0</a>
362+
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/css-tv">CSS TV Profile 1.0</a>
363+
</ul>
337364

338-
An <dfn export>Editor's Draft</dfn> is effectively a live copy of the editors’ own working copy.
339-
It may or may not reflect Working Group consensus,
340-
and can at times be in a self-inconsistent state.
341-
(Because the publishing process at W3C is time-consuming and onerous,
342-
the <a>Editor's Draft</a> is usually the best (most up-to-date) reference for a spec.
343-
Efforts are currently underway to reduce the friction of publishing,
344-
so that official drafts will be regularly up-to-date
345-
and <a>Editor's Drafts</a> can return to their original function as scratch space.)
365+
Note: Partial implementations of CSS, even if that subset is an official profile,
366+
must follow the forward-compatible parsing rules for <a href="#partial">partial implementations</a>.
346367

347368
<h2 id="responsible">
348369
Requirements for Responsible Implementation of CSS</h2>
@@ -363,19 +384,6 @@ Requirements for Responsible Implementation of CSS</h2>
363384
if any value is considered invalid (as unsupported values must be),
364385
CSS requires that the entire declaration be ignored.
365386

366-
<h3 id="profiles">CSS Profiles</h3>
367-
368-
Not all implementations will implement all functionality defined in CSS.
369-
For example, an implementation may choose to implement only the functionality required by a CSS Profile.
370-
Profiles define a subset of CSS considered fundamental for a specific class of CSS implementations.
371-
The W3C CSS Working Group defines the following CSS profiles:
372-
373-
<ul>
374-
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/css-mobile/">CSS Mobile Profile 2.0</a>
375-
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/css-print/">CSS Print Profile 1.0</a>
376-
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/css-tv">CSS TV Profile 1.0</a>
377-
</ul>
378-
379387
<h3 id="experimental">Implementations of Unstable and Proprietary Features</h3>
380388

381389
To avoid clashes with future stable CSS features,

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)