W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2011

Re: [css3-flexbox] anonymous flexbox children

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:52:10 +0100
Message-ID: <4D6EBC0A.8030508@moonhenge.net>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 02/03/2011 22:33, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 3/2/11 4:25 PM, Anton Prowse wrote:
>> I've always been rather fascinated by this idea. Can an implementation
>> claim to be compliant if it produces the same rendering in all cases as
>> if it did implement these "invisible" abstractions, even if it actually
>> doesn't implement them?
> Yes, of course. Compliance testing is black-box, no?

Indeed, but I guess it's precisely the "testing" angle that's 
interesting; the (largely philosophical) question is whether the failure 
of an implementation to implement /untestable/ requirements has a 
bearing on whether it is regarded as compliant.  Common sense would 
dictate that it doesn't, of course, but...

> The "in all cases" part is the tough part. ;)

Sure! I imagine it's easy to get caught "cheating" :-)

Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 21:52:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:44 UTC