At 10:38 PM 25/10/2005, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
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
Hi Georg,
I hear you with:
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.
In my experience some clients do want the 'valid badge'. I have had a
client who went to bobby some years ago and got warnings and thought their
website was full of errors and wouldn't work (albeit they could see it did
work).
Whilst I agree, that most of the time the validation service is used as a
development tool, those of us with client's who find these tools see a
warning as a problem with their site that they just paid good money to have
developed.
Explaining that everything is okay works but calling it a 'hint' is a way
that works for me, rather than 'warning' which is very confusing.
IMO It's difficult enough to get things to work properly on as many
browsers and platforms as possible within the time-frame to complete a job,
without the added confusion of 'warnings'.
For me, I'll now include in my written estimate of a job, a clause which
says something about 'warnings' in validation services just to cover all
avenues.
Once again many thanks to Nick, Christian, David and yourself for making
this soooo much clearer for me.
Regards
8-)
Vicki
______________________________________________________________________
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/
