At 13:28 +0100 on 12/20/2010, Gabriele Romanato wrote about [css-d]
Vendor prefixes and validation:
In response to the criticisms moved against my CSS template #1,
here's my point of view on that matter:
http://onwebdev.blogspot.com/2010/12/css-vendor-prefixes-and-validation.html
Part of the problem in my opinion is the broken nature of the
validation routines. They reject as invalid any Vendor Prefix and
thus reject as invalid any page that is otherwise valid. There should
be switches that you can use to tell the Validator that it is to
accept any vendor prefix as valid and just care about standard
W3C-Blessed CSS. Vendor Prefixes are ignored by browsers that do not
understand them (ie: FF ignores -ms-* and IE ignores -mozilla-*) and
WHEN TOLD TO so should the W3C and other Validators.
--
Bob Rosenberg
RockMUG Webmaster
[email protected]
www.RockMUG.org
______________________________________________________________________
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/
