- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 12:09:42 -0700
- To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com> wrote: > 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’ only for visual, not logical, reordering of > content; style sheets that use ‘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. The words are intended to be part of RFC2119. The fact that they can't be automatically tested is irrelevant, because we won't be testing them anyway (they're authoring conformance, not UA conformance). As Henrik says, this style of authoring conformance is used elsewhere, such as HTML. ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 13 April 2013 19:10:28 UTC