-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 672
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.
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
[css-text-3] Conformant use of text-transform #8279
Comments
I am generally unconvinced of that conformance requirements on authors typically accomplish much (unless placed in a spec to which author conformance is sought and verified, like WCAG), but I am supportive of the idea expressed in this requirement. I guess that makes me neutral on adopting this change. |
APA feels that the second choice of wording makes it more clear this the author's responsibility. Does changing from a "Note" to an "Advisement" change anything as far as spec language? |
A note is informative, an advisement is a (highlighted) normative part of the specification. If we want to use the second phrasing, it needs not to be merely an informative note, since it uses a RFC2119 verb ("must not"). So I guess that's what we'll do. |
We just resolved to republish text-3 as a CR, but I think it would be good to fold this in first. This seems good and non controversial, so maybe we can resolve it asynchronously? Also, this is a requirement on authors, not on implementers, so it would not need tests. cc: @astearns @atanassov |
Since we have an APA request for promoting the text from Note to Advisement, we should likely make that change. The CSSWG will automatically accept this resolution one week from now if no objections are raised here. Anyone can add an emoji to this comment to express support. If you do not support this resolution, please add a new comment. Proposed Resolution: Make the authoring advice for |
RESOLVED: Make the authoring advice for text-transform normative |
Currently we have the following note:
I seem to have a stray file from 2020 on my disk which instead applies this expectation as conformance criteria:
Filing this issue to ask whether we want to change it over or not.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: