Nick Fitzsimons wrote:
Frankly, it's a pretty useless warning in most cases. It would be
better to describe it as a hint: "Make sure you're really doing what
you wanted to do, and if you are, ignore this."
IMO: the same can be said about all [error] and [warning] messages. If
you know what you're doing, then the whole validation-issue comes down
to whether or not you want a [valid-badge] from W3C.
Validation can assist us by pointing out weak points, typos and errors
in our coding. 'Valid' or 'not-valid' has little or nothing to do with
'working CSS', and the quality of our code is not depending on what the
validator tells us.
To give a clear example: W3C are accepting the use of browser-specific,
not normative, CSS-properties, and have even documented how to name and
use such CSS-properties.
W3C is also defining how browsers should use and/or ignore certain
"things". Some of these are related to older CSS-parts and some are
'possible' future parts. They are exceptions, and documented as such on
the W3C site.
It doesn't make them valid, so the validator may protest wildly.
However, there's no other way to allow for 'real world' CSS and
pre-testing in browsers, and coders should learn to recognize these
[errors] and [warnings] for what they are, just as W3C does.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
