- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:27:08 -0400
- 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: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tabular-data.html#tabular-data ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 15:27:42 UTC