I can see reasons for using either "CSS 2.1 nth edition" or "CSS 2.2 (nth edition)" moving forward. In either case we should use "++nth edition" for subsequent updates rather than incrementing the decimal. Here is what I could come up with and or saw or heard mentioned by others: Arguments for CSS 2.1 nth edition moving forward: * no new features, so no need to increment the decimal * past decision(s) that CSS 2.1 would be the last version of CSS2. * avoid version number inflation Arguments for CSS 2.2 nth edition moving forward: * CSS 2.1 has been a stable (unchanging) document for many years, "2nd edition" does not accurately reflect the extent of likely editorial and substantive edits necessary to incorporate years of accumulated errata and issues * "CSS 2.2" explicitly sends a signal to browser implementers and detail-oriented web developers that it has (will have) major bug fixes since CSS 2.1 that everyone else has read and referenced (in books etc.) * Regular updates is a new mode. Since the proposed CSS 2.x editing & publishing workflow (see https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2553) will be publishing regular updates with changes, it makes sense to provide a new decimal version number to signal this change in expected maintenance as well * A CSS 2.2 WD has been published, and will forever exist. It would now look weird (possibly be confusing) to have the "latest" CSS 2.x be 2.1, a perceived step backwards from the 2.2 WD * A single decimal increment over the course of 10+ years is reasonable and provides no danger immediate or subsequent of version number inflation Based on these reasons, I have some preference for now (continuing) moving forward with CSS 2.2 on the condition that our proposed seasonal/regular iterations use "nth edition" rather than incrementing the decimal. I also agree that "Just changing the publication date, without updating the spec name, doesn't seem enough to me". I would be open to incrementing the decimal in the distant future if we make major changes such as replacing whole chapters with normative references to CSS 3 modules, or perhaps obsoleting a whole chapter in deference to one or more CSS module(s) (e.g. perhaps colors.html with css-color-3 and css-backgrounds-3). PROPOSED: Use CSS 2.2 for the next REC track revision of CSS 2.1, and then append "2nd edition", "3rd edition" etc. for subsequent Edited Recommendations.

I can see reasons for using either "CSS 2.1 nth edition" or "CSS 2.2 (nth edition)" moving forward. In either case we should use "++nth edition" for subsequent updates rather than incrementing the decimal. Here is what I could come up with and or saw or heard mentioned by others:

Arguments for CSS 2.1 nth edition moving forward:
* no new features, so no need to increment the decimal
* past decision(s) that CSS 2.1 would be the last version of CSS2.
* avoid version number inflation

Arguments for CSS 2.2 nth edition moving forward:
* CSS 2.1 has been a stable (unchanging) document for many years, "2nd edition" does not accurately reflect the extent of likely editorial and substantive edits necessary to incorporate years of accumulated errata and issues
* "CSS 2.2" explicitly sends a signal to browser implementers and detail-oriented web developers that it has (will have) major bug fixes since CSS 2.1 that everyone else has read and referenced (in books etc.)
* Regular updates is a new mode. Since the proposed CSS 2.x editing & publishing workflow (see https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2553) will be publishing regular updates with changes, it makes sense to provide a new decimal version number to signal this change in expected maintenance as well
* A CSS 2.2 WD has been published, and will forever exist. It would now look weird (possibly be confusing) to have the "latest" CSS 2.x be 2.1, a perceived step backwards from the 2.2 WD
* A single decimal increment over the course of 10+ years is reasonable and provides no danger immediate or subsequent of version number inflation

Based on these reasons, I have some preference for now (continuing) moving forward with CSS 2.2 on the condition that our proposed seasonal/regular iterations use "nth edition" rather than incrementing the decimal.

I also agree that "Just changing the publication date, without updating the spec name, doesn't seem enough to me".

I would be open to incrementing the decimal in the distant future if we make major changes such as replacing whole chapters with normative references to CSS 3 modules, or perhaps obsoleting a whole chapter in deference to one or more CSS module(s) (e.g. perhaps colors.html with css-color-3 and css-backgrounds-3).

PROPOSED: Use CSS 2.2 for the next REC track revision of CSS 2.1, and then append "2nd edition", "3rd edition" etc. for subsequent Edited Recommendations.