- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:11:53 -0700
- 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. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 17:12:42 UTC