[flexbox] Confusing sentence in a note about order and navigation · Issue #1677 · w3c/csswg-drafts · GitHub
Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[flexbox] Confusing sentence in a note about order and navigation #1677

Closed
frivoal opened this issue Aug 2, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

[flexbox] Confusing sentence in a note about order and navigation #1677

frivoal opened this issue Aug 2, 2017 · 5 comments
Assignees
@frivoal @fantasai
Labels
Closed Accepted as Editorial Commenter Satisfied Commenter has indicated satisfaction with the resolution / edits. css-flexbox-1 Current Work Tracked in DoC
Milestone
css-flexbox-1 201...

Comments

@frivoal
Copy link
Collaborator

frivoal commented Aug 2, 2017 •
edited
Loading

The following sentence (the last one in section 5.4.1. Reordering and Accessibility in flexbox) is problematic:

However a UA that uses order in determining sequential navigation, but does not otherwise account for spatial relationships among elements (as expressed by the various layout features of CSS including and not limited to flex layout), is non-conforming.

It looks like it is trying to introduce a conformance requirement in a note, which is not OK.

What is is actually trying to do is to illustrate a way than an implementation could fail to honor the normative conformance requirement already introduced by the second sentence of the section:

Likewise, order does not affect the default traversal order of sequential navigation modes (such as cycling through links, see e.g. tabindex [HTML5]).
@frivoal frivoal added the css-flexbox-1 Current Work label Aug 2, 2017
@frivoal frivoal mentioned this issue Aug 2, 2017
Closed
@astearns
Copy link
Member

astearns commented Aug 3, 2017

Since the conformance requirement already exists, I'm not sure the example in the note needs to reinforce it. What if we changed the sentence in the note to something like:

But order is not the only (or even the first) CSS property that would need to be considered for a spatial navigation feature. A well-implemented spatial navigation feature would need to consider all the layout features of CSS that modify spatial relationships.

@fantasai
Copy link
Collaborator

fantasai commented Aug 3, 2017

Works for me. Did you mean first as in "earliest defined" or first as in "primary"?

@astearns
Copy link
Member

astearns commented Aug 3, 2017

I meant primary, but I suppose it works either way.

@fantasai
Copy link
Collaborator

fantasai commented Aug 4, 2017

In that case I'll s/first/primary/. :)

@tantek
Copy link
Member

tantek commented Aug 4, 2017

Alan's proposed changed sentence is an improvement, with either first/primary (editor discretion). LGTM.

@fantasai fantasai added Closed Accepted as Editorial Commenter Satisfied Commenter has indicated satisfaction with the resolution / edits. and removed Agenda+ F2F labels Sep 6, 2017
@fantasai fantasai added this to the Published css-flexbox-1 2017-10-19 milestone Mar 29, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@frivoal frivoal

@fantasai fantasai

Labels
Closed Accepted as Editorial Commenter Satisfied Commenter has indicated satisfaction with the resolution / edits. css-flexbox-1 Current Work Tracked in DoC
Projects
None yet
Milestone
css-flexbox-1 2017-10-19+
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@tantek @frivoal @fantasai @astearns