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 nee

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.