Re: [css-d] validators tied up today?

[David Laakso]

Peter Bradley wrote:
> Ar 12/05/10 21:10, ysgrifennodd John :
>   
>> I haven't been able to get a page validated all week...others seeing
>> this too?
>>
>>
>> 
>
>   




Short, sporadic time-outs on this end. It's the weather. Or is it the 
moon? Either way, Tidy Online is often very helpful in pointing out 
markup  errors while one waits...


~d


-- 
desktop
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/
mobile
http://chelseacreekstudio.mobi/

__
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/

Re: [css-d] validators tied up today?

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On May 13, 2010, at 6:26 AM, jeffrey morin wrote:

> I would say it's a good idea to validate your CSS if only to check that you
> haven't made any typos. I know that when I check legacy code I have found
> some obvious things that could have been avoided by using the validator. But
> I would say that whether a website is down or not isn't really a list topic.

For checking the syntax of stylesheets (typos and other glaring errors), the 
error console in Firefox is pretty useful. It will flag any such errors, 
including the line number in your stylesheet.

Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/





__
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/

Re: [css-d] validators tied up today?

[jeffrey morin]

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Gabriele Romanato <
gabriele.roman...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Honestly speaking guys, I don't see the point with using the W3C CSS
> Validator today. If you need parsing check, it's already performed by
> most browsers. If you need version checking, simply stick to each
> style definition explained in the specs. For example, simply add
> &profile=cssn to your validator URI to check if your styles conform to
> the n spec (1, 2, 3). Of course, this is NOT mandatory, because the
> bigon age of W3C CSS badges is over. A website should be more than
> simply validated to satisfy user needs: it should be usable, user-
> friendly and accessible. Further, it should present  interesting and
> useful contents.  That's all. A user don't care a fig if you're using
> 'border-radius' or '-moz-border-radius',  remember that. By the way,
> as a W3C translator I also noticed that most W3C pages don't validate.
> So what? bye ;-)
>
> http://www.css-zibaldone.com
> http://www.css-zibaldone.com/test/  (English)
> http://www.css-zibaldone.com/articles/  (English)
> http://onwebdev.blogspot.com/  (English)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __
> 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/
>


I would say it's a good idea to validate your CSS if only to check that you
haven't made any typos. I know that when I check legacy code I have found
some obvious things that could have been avoided by using the validator. But
I would say that whether a website is down or not isn't really a list topic.

- Jeff
__
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/

Re: [css-d] validators tied up today?

[Gabriele Romanato]

Honestly speaking guys, I don't see the point with using the W3C CSS  
Validator today. If you need parsing check, it's already performed by  
most browsers. If you need version checking, simply stick to each  
style definition explained in the specs. For example, simply add  
&profile=cssn to your validator URI to check if your styles conform to  
the n spec (1, 2, 3). Of course, this is NOT mandatory, because the  
bigon age of W3C CSS badges is over. A website should be more than  
simply validated to satisfy user needs: it should be usable, user- 
friendly and accessible. Further, it should present  interesting and  
useful contents.  That's all. A user don't care a fig if you're using  
'border-radius' or '-moz-border-radius',  remember that. By the way,  
as a W3C translator I also noticed that most W3C pages don't validate.  
So what? bye ;-)

http://www.css-zibaldone.com
http://www.css-zibaldone.com/test/  (English)
http://www.css-zibaldone.com/articles/  (English)
http://onwebdev.blogspot.com/  (English)








__
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/

Re: [css-d] validators tied up today?

[Peter Bradley]

Ar 12/05/10 21:10, ysgrifennodd John :
> I haven't been able to get a page validated all week...others seeing
> this too?
>
>

It's been very slow for a while now.  It does work in the end, if you 
can stand the wait.

Chers


Peter

-- 
http://www.peredur.net

__
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/

[css-d] validators tied up today?

[John]

I haven't been able to get a page validated all week...others seeing  
this too?

Is there an alternative?

thanks,

John
__
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/

[css-d] Taking my site to the next level

[Brian M. Curran]

Hi All,
I've built my site with the help of this CSS community (which I'm extremely 
grateful to), and now I'd like to talk to someone about making it look more 
professional. The written content and link structures need to stay the same, 
because of SEO reasons. Therefore I just want my basic design look to be 
improved upon. For instance, I'm not satisfied with how my secondary nav bar 
looks. I'm also not satisfied with how my masthead looks, and how I've used my 
logo in it. ...So, if there is someone looking to take on another project, then 
please send me a personal email, with a link to your design portfolio. I prefer 
a Designer who is contemporary and minimalistic in his website designs.

Sincerely,
Brian
br...@draftingservices.com 
__
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/

Re: [css-d] img element or sprites for icons?

[Bobby Jack]

--- On Wed, 5/12/10, jeffrey morin  wrote:

> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:18 PM,
> Thierry Koblentz <
> thierry.koble...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Why not using the links or list items to hold the
> background images rather
> > than adding extra elements (spans or else?
> 
> Sorry I should have explained that better. The links are
> using a background
> image to make them look like buttons. So that's why I was
> looking at an
> empty element instead of using the links.

How essential are those icons? If they are genuinely conveying no information 
(as your screenreader comments imply) then I'd personally have no problem 
adding the markup 'placeholders' via JavaScript, and styling their backgrounds 
via CSS. That keeps your markup clean but still gives you all the benefits of 
CSS-images.

- Bobby
__
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/

Re: [css-d] img element or sprites for icons?

[Alan Gresley]

jeffrey morin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am working on some redesign stuff at work and one of the things is that we
> are putting decorative icons next to link text. My question is would it be
> better to put an empty  tag in my code and use it with css backgrounds
> or just put the images in the code using the  element. They're just for
> decoration so they wouldn't benefit from an alt attribute and I could save
> some http requests by loading just the one sprite as opposed to x amount of
> different icons.
> 
> But, I also am not sure how correct it is to have an empty html element just
> sitting in the code like that. I know with image replacement you usually put
> text in to describe the image that replaces the text but for just an icon I
> wouldn't want a screen reader to basically read the description of just a
> decorative thing when it really doesn't add any significance to the page.
> 
> Any opinions on this? If this is an old subject could someone please point
> me to where it's been discussed?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jeff


Could you apply the background to the links. Anyway, decorative icons 
should be called in via the CSS. I see nothing wrong with empty 
elements but then again, I don't follow rules.


-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
__
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/

Re: [css-d] img element or sprites for icons?

[jeffrey morin]

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Thierry Koblentz <
thierry.koble...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why not using the links or list items to hold the background images rather
> than adding extra elements (spans or else?
>
> --
> Thierry (mobile)
> Typos compliments of my iPhone
>
>

Sorry I should have explained that better. The links are using a background
image to make them look like buttons. So that's why I was looking at an
empty element instead of using the links.

Jeff
__
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/

[css-d] img element or sprites for icons?

[jeffrey morin]

Hi,

I am working on some redesign stuff at work and one of the things is that we
are putting decorative icons next to link text. My question is would it be
better to put an empty  tag in my code and use it with css backgrounds
or just put the images in the code using the  element. They're just for
decoration so they wouldn't benefit from an alt attribute and I could save
some http requests by loading just the one sprite as opposed to x amount of
different icons.

But, I also am not sure how correct it is to have an empty html element just
sitting in the code like that. I know with image replacement you usually put
text in to describe the image that replaces the text but for just an icon I
wouldn't want a screen reader to basically read the description of just a
decorative thing when it really doesn't add any significance to the page.

Any opinions on this? If this is an old subject could someone please point
me to where it's been discussed?

Thanks,
Jeff
__
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/