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

Re: [css3-flexbox] Painting order

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:11:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCzpZkDr6NsuynNA+3uc+bW1KSHJN8CnpmYRxL5Ghq-bA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> 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.

Authoring conformance requirements are very rarely machine-checkable.
That doesn't mean they can't be phrased as a MUST.

Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 17:12:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:01 UTC