Csswg-drafts: CSS2 next edition naming

[gsnedders]

We previously resolved to call the next version of CSS2 "CSS 2.2".

From more recent discussions with several people in the group, it seems like there's still a sizeable number who are in favour of "CSS 2.1 2nd Edition" (or similar). The two main reasons for this:

• The number of references around the place to CSS 2.1 is _vast_; calling it a new edition of 2.1 should help keep people looking at the right document.
• We're not actually planning on making massively substantive changes to the spec, despite it being a new era of maintenance.

[Crissov]

The full name is _Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Revision 1_. Why should this be blown up further into something like _Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Revision 1, 2nd Edition_ when it just gets revised further?
Anyway, the discussion in #4770 is related.

[SelenIT]

Could we please keep 2.2?

[tabatkins]

I suggest "CSS 2.1 Turbo Edition"

[Crissov]

Decennial revisions:

• 2.0 ~ 2000
• 2.1 ~ 2010
• 2.2 ~ 2020

[gsnedders]

The full name is Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Revision 1. Why should this be blown up further into something like Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Revision 1, 2nd Edition when it just gets revised further?

Essentially nobody calls it by its full name, though. Even within the WG the full name essentially doesn't exist. I won't disagree it seems silly in its complete form, but I'm much more concerned about people looking at 2.1 after 2.whatever gets published because of references to CSS 2.1. Arguably where we went wrong was including ".1" in the obvious name of a spec for level 2 in the first place. 🙃

I suggest "CSS 2.1 Turbo Edition"

Gotta go fast.

[SelenIT]

I'm much more concerned about people looking at 2.1 after 2.whatever gets published because of references to CSS 2.1

Wouldn't the warning message added above the 2.1 document and referencing the newer edition be enough to prevent the confusion? I'd say it will. Also, there is already such a message at https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/, and it already mentions 2.2 as the next revision.

[fantasai]

@SelenIT Trying to figure out how to update CSS2 has been a bit of a mess, due to restrictions in the W3C Process. So at one point we had published an FPWD of 2.2 with the intention of driving it through the whole FPWD->WD->CR->REC process. But it makes more sense to amend CSS2.1 in place as a REC (and Process 2020 will make this a lot easier). So I'm with @gsnedders for all the reasons he mentioned, and also because it's no longer a new shortname, it's just updating CSS2 in place.