On 8/21/10 9:43 AM, Wesley Acheson wrote: > I see what you mean your using the vendor specific extensions to css. You > can't continue with the valid CSS icon, I'm afraid. Though I personally > don't think theres a problem with using these extensions. > > Wesley > > On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Nestor Augusto Tous Maya< > nnes...@utp.edu.co> wrote: > [...] >> 7 validation errors appear and it's assumed to be due to the process of >> progressive improvement. >> >> Can I continue with valid CSS icon, although there are validation errors?, >> Arguing that progressive improvement. >> ---
Personally, I think that using the W3C icon is asking for trouble. Most folks don't know and don't care what it means. Mean-spirited folks like me are tempted to use it in order to gloat over the errors... My own take on validation is that it's an essential tool, just as is a spell-checker. But not all flagged errors are in fact errors-- i don't believe that vendor extensions should be flagged. (But that's a personal opinion.) A British spell-checker will tell me that the CSS 'color' property is misspelled. Do I change the spelling? I think not. FWIW I do *not* hide IE-specific rules in conditional comments, but deliberately use filters ("hacks") to target older IE. Why? So that when a site is maintained, the validator reminds the developer to pull rules that are no longer needed. The immediate benefit is that no rules are omitted from validation--surely a plus? Cordially, David. ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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/