Resolve "Orientation of the page is not restricted using CSS transform property" feedback

[cpandhi]

Orientation of the page is not restricted using CSS transform property Survey results

survey discussed during: July 23 meeting July 30 meeting

Wilco

• [ ] I think we can improve the way this is formulated a little. I don't think this should be written out as a list.
• [ ] I think the notes from the applicability and expectation should be moved to the background section.

Trevor Bostic

• [ ] The CSS3 Media Queries and Orientation links in the background section are to the same page. Orientation is just an anchor on that same page. Unsure if we care about this small duplication or not.
• [ ] For the applicability, I am wondering if we could include the first note in the applicability statement instead of as a note. E.g., "... where the CSS transform property has the potential to affect the rotation of a given element. Example transformation functions include: list of transform functions".

Kathy Eng

• [ ] The existence of any control on the page that can change the orientation on demand.
• [ ] "Content does not restrict its view and operation to a single display orientation, such as portrait or landscape, unless a specific display orientation is essential."
• [ ] The SC doesn't mention such a control would meet the requirement so this assumption may not be necessary.

Mary Jo

• [ ] Not sure I understand Wilco's concern of the assumptions being written as a list. Though I don't think limitations of the rule should be listed as assumptions. I think they're making an assumption that the new rotate3d, rotateZ, and matrix3d transformation functions will make it through to the Recommendation version of the spec that's under way. I find it a little odd that things that are under development and not part of a Recommendation spec are in an ACT rule.
• [ ] I have posed the question Kathy had about use of a control to adjust the orientation meeting the SC to Mike Gower and am awaiting an answer on that. It is my belief that even a bulleted sufficient technique that doesn't have a fully written out technique page is still a valid technique. It's part of the normative spec and listed as a sufficient technique.
• [ ] To Trevor's points: I'm not concerned about the links, they're fine.
• [ ] On the applicability, I agree with his suggestion to incorporate the note into the first paragraph of the applicability. To take care of the other note, I suggest that properties that aren't in a Recommendation spec should not be part of an official ACT Rule until that spec reaches Recommendation.