W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [css-flexbox-1] Untestable assertions

From: Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:24:05 +0200
Message-ID: <5169A2C5.2000203@henke37.cjb.net>
To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Arron Eicholz skriver:
> *Section 5*
> 
> Authors /must not/ use these techniques as a substitute for correct
> source ordering, as that can ruin the accessibility of the document.
> 
>  
> 
> *Section 5.4.1*
> 
> Authors /must/ use ‘order <#order>’ only for visual, not logical,
> reordering of content; style sheets that use ‘order <#order>’ to perform
> logical reordering are non-conforming.
> 
>  
> 
> *Section 7.1*
> 
> To avoid misinterpretation or invalid declarations, authors must specify
> a zero <flex-basis> component with a unit or precede it by two flex factors
> 
>  
> 
> We should reword these above assertions so I do not need to test authors
> that they */MUST/* do something. I think we can easily say ‘recommended’
> or ‘should’ or even better ‘are encouraged’. Also we should probably not
> emphasize the word. Emphasis implies that the words are part of RFC2119.
> 
>  
> 

Impossible to automatically verify does not mean that they are mere
recommendations. These requirements seem very similar to ones from the
HTML specification. And HTML has requirements that can't be
automatically checked.
Received on Saturday, 13 April 2013 18:24:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:10 UTC