Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error

2010-02-04 Thread David Dorward
On 4 Feb 2010, at 07:42, Joshua Street wrote: The validator does correctly parse as per the spec. The spec defines a way for vendor prefixes to exist without conflicting with anything in CSS, no more. This makes them part of the grammar, not the vocabulary, and the validator checks both.

Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error

2010-02-04 Thread James Ellis
Hi I guess it's understand the consequences and use at your own risk. I doubt a vendor will change the spelling and if they do, I'm pretty sure they'd maintain BC by allowing both to work. Using the example of *-radius, the vendor differences are more to do with what the values selected will

RE: [WSG] CSS Validation Error

2010-02-03 Thread Thierry Koblentz
-moz is a vendor prefix (not CSS3) -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Anderson Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 3:12 PM To: wsg Subject: [WSG] CSS Validation Error When I am

Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error

2010-02-03 Thread Joshua Street
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: -moz is a vendor prefix (not CSS3) Actually, vendor prefixes are a part of both CSS 2.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords as well as the CSS3 working draft... they're for proprietary

Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error

2010-02-03 Thread James Ellis
Hi You can safely ignore any -prefix validation errors (-moz, -webkit, -opera) - they are never going to validate on the W3C validator. The point of the vendor specific rules is to do stuff the W3C haven't standardised yet. The validator should probably ignore them as well. If you really must

RE: [WSG] CSS Validation Error

2010-02-03 Thread Thierry Koblentz
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Street Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 5:59 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com

RE: [WSG] CSS Validation Error

2010-02-03 Thread Thierry Koblentz
* in the declaration block -- Regards, Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of James Ellis Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:10 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error Hi You can safely ignore any

Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error

2010-02-03 Thread Joshua Street
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: -moz is a vendor prefix (not CSS3) Actually, vendor prefixes are a part of both CSS 2.1

Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error

2010-02-03 Thread David Dorward
On 4 Feb 2010, at 03:29, Joshua Street wrote: The prefix may be part of it to address parsing issues, but - afaik - that does not make these extensions CSS properties. Indeed - yet therein lies the frustration at the validator failing to correctly parse as per spec. The validator does

Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error

2010-02-03 Thread Joshua Street
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:16 PM, David Dorward da...@dorward.me.uk wrote: On 4 Feb 2010, at 03:29, Joshua Street wrote: The prefix may be part of it to address parsing issues, but - afaik - that does not make these extensions CSS properties. Indeed - yet therein lies the frustration at the

Re: [WSG] css validation error

2004-09-20 Thread John Oxton
Maybe you could try not using the font shorthand to get it to validate, try it as font-family etc. Could it be that there is something missing from that rule? Certainly one I have had problem with before. Cameron Muir wrote: Thanks for pointing that out John - serves me right for not cleaning

Re: [WSG] css validation error

2004-09-20 Thread Cameron Muir
Thanks John and Ryan - the problem was something to do with the menu list item styles. It was way down the bottom of the page - I was going crazy because I thought that error report referred to the body style (which was at the top of the page). I only realised that must have been the problem

Re: [WSG] css validation error

2004-09-20 Thread Kevin Futter
My understanding was that there shouldn't be a comma in the shorthand font selector after Trebuchet MS (but I could be wrong ...). Cheers, Kevin Futter On 20/9/04 4:26 PM, John Oxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe you could try not using the font shorthand to get it to validate, try it as

Re: [WSG] css validation error

2004-09-20 Thread Kevin Futter
It appears from another post that I am wrong! Oh well ... Kevin Futter On 21/9/04 8:56 AM, Kevin Futter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My understanding was that there shouldn't be a comma in the shorthand font selector after Trebuchet MS (but I could be wrong ...). Cheers, Kevin Futter On

Re: [WSG] css validation error

2004-09-20 Thread Ryan Christie
font: [italics/bold/etc] [size]/[line-height] [two words],[fam2],[fam3],[etc]; Kevin Futter wrote: My understanding was that there shouldn't be a comma in the shorthand font selector after Trebuchet MS (but I could be wrong ...). Cheers, Kevin Futter On 20/9/04 4:26 PM, John Oxton [EMAIL

Re: [WSG] css validation error

2004-09-19 Thread John Oxton
Hi Cameron, You have this .paymate { position: relative: top: 20px; right: 10px; } the position:relative needs a semi colon and you should be on your way Regards, John, Cameron Muir wrote: Hello, I can't work out why this is producing an error. I'm sure there must be a

Re: [WSG] css validation error

2004-09-19 Thread Cameron Muir
Thanks for pointing that out John - serves me right for not cleaning out disused styles. However, I'm still getting the same error. John Oxton wrote: Hi Cameron, You have this .paymate { position: relative: top: 20px; right: 10px; } the position:relative needs a semi colon and you