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

types of conformance statements (was Re: [css3-background] clarify which properties in this module apply to ::first-letter and ::first-line)

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:52:01 -0700
To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120328195201.GA29741@crum.dbaron.org>
On Wednesday 2012-03-28 19:32 +0800, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
> I never understand the logic used in the specs. So when a sentence (e.g.
> the #-referenced one) is not tagged with a MUST or SHOULD, is this by
> default a MUST? And would adding a SHOULD/MUST here help? (is
> SHOULD/MUST stronger than a MAY if there's conflict?)

By default it doesn't affect conformance; it's a statement of fact
or a definition.  For it to affect conformance it needs to be
incorporated by a sentence with a conformance requirement (must,
should, etc.).

That said, many CSS specs (including CSS 2.1) aren't very good about
expressing conformance requirements where they ought to do so.

For more detail, see http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1140242962&count=1 .


𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 19:52:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:14 UTC