W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [css-flexbox-1] Untestable assertions

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:35:23 +0800
Message-ID: <516E187B.4050607@oupeng.com>
To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
CC: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
(13/04/17 0:00), Arron Eicholz wrote:
> This is the whole reason I brought the issue up because testing
> author requirements makes no sense.

For what it's worth, I don't think testing author requirements is
completely not making sense. You mentioned

(13/04/15 23:49), Arron Eicholz wrote:
> 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.

, but I don't see why vendors/UAs don't have the freedom to violate the
spec. How is anything different?

(13/04/17 0:00), Arron Eicholz wrote:
> Who cares what I wanted to reword sentences too. I was trying to be
> helpful and constructive. Which is what all of us should do in this
> case. However, we seem to be attacking me for raising a valid issue
> that we missed a key piece of text in our module template, and not
> trying to understand the real issue of why I thought I needed to
> bring the issue up in the first place.

I don't think there any sort of "attacking" involved. The truth is, if
we have to remove those authoring requirement, the WG might need to
consult the group that asked for it (in this case, PFWG[1]), which seems
more cumbersome.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Aug/0281

(13/04/17 2:38), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
>>> As I pointed out this was one possible solution, not the only
>>> solution. Also without a clause stating that author requirements
>>> are not to be included in testing I MUST test them if they contain
>>> text pertaining to RFC 2119. There is no question about that from a
>>> testing perspective, and it¹s the rule we have always followed.
>> Actually, I think this very much ought to be questioned from any
>> kind of perspective. Maybe we ought to expand a little on overly
>> simplistic rules instead of blindly applying them.
> Also, what's the "we" you're referring to, Arron?  It can't be the WG,
> so I assume it's "the group I work in at MS".

If we are thinking beyond this WG, then this thread ought to be
discussed on spec-prod@w3.org or other mailing list because, as folks
have mentioned, "we" have a bigger problem with the HTML5 spec.

Web Specialist, Opera Sphinx Game Force, Oupeng Browser, Beijing
Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 03:35:51 UTC

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