Re: [WSG] When is invalid CSS okay?
I think one of the great things about the CSS specifications is that they specify how to handle errors, when rules should be ignored, etc. As long as your hacks follow these rules and a perfectly compliant browser would read it all correctly and ignore any fixes, that's fine. Conditional comments are better, though, as its quite obvious that a compliant browser should ignore them. (Don't get me wrong, I like conditional comments) Forget validation if a fully compliant parser would parse them properly. PS: Tantek has a great article on this at http://tantek.com/log/2005/11.html Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney Devi Web Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 8/22/07, Rick Lecoat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is probably one of those questions that divides the audience (no, it doesn't involve brussel sprouts), but here goes: As exponents of web standards, we all know that one of the bedrock basics is that our code should validate -- both (x)html and css. But we also know that IE(win) is something of a recalcitrant beast and must occasionally be spanked into order with some hacks and/or conditionally commented stylesheets. And sometimes the workarounds required are non-valid CSS. So, is it considered 'okay', in a web standards sense, to have a non- valid bug-fixes stylesheet working alongside your perfect, pristine, uiber-valid main stylesheet? To give an example, if I were to have an IE-specific stylesheet with a lot of stuff like filter: alpha(opacity=50) in it -- which, a quick Google check informs me, does not validate -- would that be seen as a breach of web standards? Perhaps this whole issue is me getting too focused on the nitty gritty, but I'm in the process of moving from 'old-school' to web standards and am trying very hard to get it 'right'. This is just one of the goal posts that I'd like to clearly identify. Thanks. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] W3C CSS Validation Service
The online validators are all still kept separate, although work on unicorn ( http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/Unicorn/ ) is moving, if slowly. However, the LogValidator is a server tool which includes html, xhtml, and css validators. It can be found at http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/LogValidator/ -- Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney Devi Web Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 8/25/07, Joyce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I used to validate my XHTML at one W3C URL, and then there was another URL where I validated my CSS style sheet(s). It seems this has been combined so that I can now validate both my CSS style sheet and my XHTML markup at this URL: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/. I'd like to verify that this is a correct observation on my part. Also, I used to think I had to validate every single page of a website I developed (they've all been small websites). Today, I typed in only the URL for the website I wanted to validate, and I received the message that no error was found. I'd like to verify this as well – that I only need to type in the website's URL and not each individual page. Thank you for responding to what are probably elementary questions. Joyce *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: WSG Digest
On 9/30/07, Robert Love [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, change this: meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/xml; charset=ISO-8859-1 / to this: meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/xml; charset=utf-8 / ISO-8859-1 is a valid charset, why is that change necessary. It is also important that people report the charset they are actually using. Many beginning authors just change the meta content type (or even the HTTP content type) without actually changing the charset they are using. --- Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney Devi Web Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] worst site I've seen lately
I just found what I consider to be an extremely annoying, very blinky website someone spent way too much time writing flash for. http://www.ourtype.be/ --- Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney Devi Web Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Re: worst site I've seen lately
On 10/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just found what I consider to be an extremely annoying, very blinky website someone spent way too much time writing flash for. http://www.ourtype.be/ Sorry, I didn't intend to send that to wsg, although I guess it's related... --- Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney Devi Web Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] POSH article question
On 11/1/07, Tom Livingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Use the em and strong elements for emphasis, not to make text bold or italic (i.e. do not mindlessly replace i and b with em and strong). Specifically, for example, if I want a few bold words in the middle of a sentence, what then should I use? Are b and i still ok to use? They aren't deprecated? I could have sworn reading a year or 2 ago that b and i were so last year I'm just still a little confused with this statement. I am SLOWLY trying to better my skill set here. Sorry if this is basic stuff to you... The idea is that you should use strong or em if you mean strong or emphasis. If you are writing a book title, the you shouldn't use either, but rather something like a span class=book with your styling of choice. It all comes down to semantic markup. em and strong mean something, b and i only have inferred meaning based on traditional publishing rules and context. --- Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney Devi Web Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
