Repository navigation
[flexbox] Confusing sentence in a note about order and navigation #1677
Description
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]).
Activity
astearns commentedon 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:
fantasai commentedon Aug 3, 2017
Works for me. Did you mean first as in "earliest defined" or first as in "primary"?
astearns commentedon Aug 3, 2017
I meant primary, but I suppose it works either way.
fantasai commentedon Aug 4, 2017
In that case I'll s/first/primary/. :)
tantek commentedon Aug 4, 2017
Alan's proposed changed sentence is an improvement, with either first/primary (editor discretion). LGTM.