You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.
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]).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
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.