3 ms·

This article is a masterwork in expanding a single sentence ("CSS gets a new conceptual version every few big modules") into an absolute saga. As I was reading

This article is a masterwork in expanding a single sentence ("CSS gets a new conceptual version every few big modules") into an absolute saga. As I was reading through I was worried I was about to read an article about how some big company was going to recreate CSS from the ground up because there's too much cruft or something. A relief!

runawaybottle 6y ago
All I could think as I read it was ‘What am I reading here, and should I be terrified?’. I live in fear reading through anything new in the frontend space. Any further developments in this space needs to come full circle with web components. The WASM army have begun marching recently too. The horror! The horror!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
uallo 6y ago
> "CSS gets a new conceptual version every few big modules" Where in the article does it say anything like that? The article does not present any decision in that regard at all. It summarizes the history of CSS and the discussion about whether or not to (re-)introduce some kind of global CSS versioning. It presents some suggestions and concerns from the community. But it does not introduce anything.
- akersten 6y ago
  It's the last sentence, which one could be excused for not enduring the rest of the article before reaching: > , a precise definition of ‘CSS X’ isn’t even needed. Every three years of so, some people should pick a couple of interesting new modules that were added in that period and start writing about them, under the heading ‘CSS 4’, then ‘CSS 5’, etc. ‘CSS X’ is defined as those two or so modules, plus whatever was in the previous version and a loosely defined set of other modules. I said "conceptual" because it's just some person's opinion about versioning, and the article does say the CSS working group doesn't really care for versioning at all. Either way, my opinion was that the article is about 95% too long, I'm making no other claims.

runawaybottle 6y ago

All I could think as I read it was ‘What am I reading here, and should I be terrified?’. I live in fear reading through anything new in the frontend space. Any further developments in this space needs to come full circle with web components. The WASM army have begun marching recently too. The horror! The horror!

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

uallo 6y ago

> "CSS gets a new conceptual version every few big modules" Where in the article does it say anything like that? The article does not present any decision in that regard at all. It summarizes the history of CSS and the discussion about whether or not to (re-)introduce some kind of global CSS versioning. It presents some suggestions and concerns from the community. But it does not introduce anything.

akersten 6y ago
It's the last sentence, which one could be excused for not enduring the rest of the article before reaching: > , a precise definition of ‘CSS X’ isn’t even needed. Every three years of so, some people should pick a couple of interesting new modules that were added in that period and start writing about them, under the heading ‘CSS 4’, then ‘CSS 5’, etc. ‘CSS X’ is defined as those two or so modules, plus whatever was in the previous version and a loosely defined set of other modules. I said "conceptual" because it's just some person's opinion about versioning, and the article does say the CSS working group doesn't really care for versioning at all. Either way, my opinion was that the article is about 95% too long, I'm making no other claims.