David Hucklesby wrote:
> Thierry responded:
>
> Speaking for myself, I "care" for CSS validation, in the way I "care"
> to spell check my documents. But I don't regard either check as the
> final arbiter of what goes into the a document.
>
> If I write about the Sheraton Centre in New York, for example,
> my (US) spell checker tells me that "Centre" is misspelled. Still,
> I see no need to "correct" the spelling since the sign on the complex
> spells it that way.
>
> In the same way, I don't hide proprietary CSS from the validator
> in order to "pass" validation. I don't see the point, as the document
> gets the "invalid" code anyway.
>
> Likewise, if you need to "hack the dead," what's the difference
> between using a leading underscore and using the "star html" aka.
> Tan hack? (And since when has the universal selector been invalid?)
>
> Yes, the underscore does not validate, while the Tan hack does.
> So what?
>
> Cordially,
> David
> --
Really it doesn't matter what extra gremlims appear in anyones individual
stylesheets [1]. My main point is that using valid hacks allow the style
declarations to be fully parsed by the W3C CSS validator [2]. Trying to
validate with this.
.newBFC {
overflow: hidden;
_overflow: visible;
_overflow-x:hidden;
_height: 0;
*min-height: 0;
}
Will produce all errors in the validator report and nothing will show as valid.
Trying to validate with this.
.newBFC {
overflow: hidden;
_overflow: visible;
_overflow-x:hidden;
_height: 0;
min-height: 0;
}
Will only produce only produce three errors and the validator will show this as
valid.
.newBFC {
overflow : hidden;
min-height : 0;
}
What my concern is that other CSS user may copy parts of this, potentially
morphing itself around the various mailing list and forums and result in new
user of CSS who use these hack not understanding what is going on in there page
when they may have some invalid declaration within the rule set. The whole rule
set is thrown out by the validator so the errors within one declaration that
could be the cause of their page problem does not be parsed thus not reported
as an error.
Thank you Thierry for the heads up about the star (*) property hack. Since I
don't used it or any similar hacks, I not to knowing of there names.
[1] <http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ToHackOrNotToHack>
[2] <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/>
Alan
http://css-class.com/
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
