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: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:01:34 +0200
Message-ID: <516C245E.5030908@henke37.cjb.net>
To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: fantasai <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Arron Eicholz skriver:
> I really don't care about the RFC2119 in this situation. I am pointing out the fact that we can't test author's conformance. And we cannot require authors to do anything. Authors have the freedom of choice to do things.
> Also we do not write tests just for user agents to run we also write tests to confirm that the spec can be complied to. In this case the test has nothing to do with user agents it has to do with authors and you are requiring me to test authors. Do I need to go out and find two conforming authors?
>> As Henrik says, this style of authoring conformance is used elsewhere, such
>> as HTML.
> While I agree that there may be other places that follow this same pattern. It does not justify the fact that it is incorrect to state the sentence this way. Also I have seen very few normative, if any, statements that use this particular grammar and fall into this situation. We could also make these notes and that would also solve the problem.
> Wouldn't it just be easier to fix the issue since and issue was raised, than to continue to argue this point over email?
> --
> Thanks,
> Arron Eicholz

Authors may have the freedom to do anything. But they won't be
conforming if they violate the rules, no matter if the rules can be
tested automatically or not.
Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 16:02:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:28 UTC