[meta] Change naming scheme of FXTF specs?

[SebastianZ]

Since the FXTF specs got moved into this repo by @svgeesus, recently, I take the chance and question whether we should change their current naming scheme.

The Masking spec (and the abandoned Shaders spec) has "CSS" as prefix in its title and shortname, while all the others don't.
I guess the reason for that is that many of them were initially designed having mainly/only SVG in mind, though that line got blurred over time and more and more CSS features got introduced that are shared between SVG and HTML.

So I wonder, wouldn't it make sense to unify the naming scheme with the other specs, i.e. add the "CSS" prefix to all of them (maybe except those that only contain APIs like Geometry and Web Animations)?

Concretely, these are the changes I have in mind:

Current title	Current shortname	New title	New shortname	Notes
Compositing and Blending Module Level 1	compositing-1	CSS Compositing and Blending Module Level 1	css-compositing-1	-
Compositing and Blending Module Level 2	compositing-2	CSS Compositing and Blending Module Level 2	css-compositing-2	-
CSS Fill and Stroke Module Level 3	fill-stroke-3	CSS Fill and Stroke Module Level 3	css-fill-stroke-3	Why is that Level 3 and not 1? Due to being defined in SVG 2? Then why is Masking Level 1 and not 3?
Filter Effects Module Level 1	filter-effects-1	CSS Filter Effects Module Level 1	css-filter-effects-1	-
Filter Effects Module Level 2	filter-effects-2	CSS Filter Effects Module Level 2	css-filter-effects-2	-
Geometry Interfaces Module Level 1	geometry-1	CSS Geometry Interfaces Module Level 1	css-geometry-1	Maybe not, as it only contains APIs?
Motion Path Module Level 1	motion-1	CSS Motion Path Module Level 1	css-motion-1	-
Web Animations Module Level 1	web-animations-1	CSS Web Animations Module Level 1	css-web-animations-1	Possibly not, as it only contains APIs and might be confused with css-animations-1? Then again, they are related and we also have css-transitions and css-view-transitions.

Sebastian

[svgeesus]

I agree in general with the renaming (and leaving alone the API ones, ie keep them without the "CSS").

For Fill & Stroke, there was already a FPWD of Fill Stroke 3 in 2017 so best not to change it.

[SebastianZ]

For Fill & Stroke, there was already a FPWD of Fill Stroke 3 in 2017 so best not to change it.

I guess, what you want to say is that the naming should have been consistent with Masking (so either both 3 or both 1), but to avoid confusion we should keep the numbering, right?

Maybe a note could be added to the introduction explaining this, like we recently added one to Pseudo 4.

Sebastian