W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2012

Re: [css3-flexbox] Painting order

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:27:08 -0400
Message-ID: <500978CC.2080302@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 07/20/2012 05:05 AM, Anton Prowse wrote:
> I do have a gripe about the following sentence in the ED:
> # Authors /must/ use ‘order’ only for visual, not logical, reordering
> # of content; style sheets that use ‘order’ to perform logical
> # reordering are non-conforming.
> The "must" and the threat of non-conformance are toothless tigers since how can a UA determine whether the author has used
> 'order' as an unwise alternative to logical reordering? My impression is that this sentence is intended to be an authoring
> recommendation. That's valuable, but it needs to be a note and it needs to get rid of the RFC2119 keywords and the
> non-conformance claim.

Author conformance requirements don't need to be machine-checkable.
It's handy when they are, but they don't have to be. See, for example,
the author conformance criteria on the use of tables:

Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 15:27:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:12 UTC