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-fonts-3] Finish up Bikeshed source #234

Closed
SebastianZ opened this issue Jun 24, 2016 · 8 comments
Closed

[css-fonts-3] Finish up Bikeshed source #234

SebastianZ opened this issue Jun 24, 2016 · 8 comments

Comments

@SebastianZ
Copy link
Contributor

SebastianZ commented Jun 24, 2016

The specification is not yet generated dynamically via Bikeshed due to speced/bikeshed#453.

Once that issue is fixed, the Overview-wip.bs can be renamed to Overview.bs and Fonts.html and Fonts.src.html as well as Overview.html (see also issue #213) can be removed.

Sebastian

@litherum
Copy link
Contributor

litherum commented Mar 8, 2017

What does "ready" mean?

@SebastianZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

@svgeesus I just realized that the changes described above are still not done, so could this issue please be reopened?

Or even better, since I am a member for some time now, could I get the rights to change the issues by myself?

Sebastian

@astearns
Copy link
Member

I’ve invited you to the github group, @SebastianZ

@astearns astearns reopened this Jul 15, 2021
@SebastianZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you very much, Alan!

Sebastian

@svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @SebastianZ

Conversion to Bikeshed is a lot of work and can be error prone.

For me, it was a low priority because

  1. Fonts 3 is a W3C Recommendation, so we can't just make arbitrary changes to it, like with a WD or CR
  2. All of Fonts 3 is in Fonts 4, which is the current work, so any changes and corrections can be made there

So yes, it will be useful to have a Bikeshed version of Fonts 3, provided that the generated result has no substantive or editorial differences compared to the existing Recommendation.

@SebastianZ
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes, it's definitely low priority and should be done without actually changing the contents. Though I still think it might be worth converting it to Bikeshed as long as there are references to it.

Sebastian

@tabatkins
Copy link
Member

The important thing (well, "important") would just be adding appropriate attributes to all the dfns so that Fonts 3 can be a reasonable dfn source for Bikeshed. But since Fonts 4 is a strict superset of Fonts 3, and it is marked up appropriately (by default, due to being a Bikeshed document), that's really not very important.

So the only reason to rewrite Fonts 3 to Bikeshed at this point is ease of maintenance, and that's not really a concern either with an old Rec like this.

So, no reason not to do it, but very little reason to do it either.

@svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor

as long as there are references to it.

A recent update to the bikeshed linking database should mean there are fewer references to Fonts 3 going forward. For example, up to a week ago, CSS Text 4 referred to the definition of font-size from CSS Fonts 3; it now links to the definition in CSS Fonts 5.

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

No branches or pull requests

6 participants