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 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. The CSS 2.1 specification says "Authors should avoid vendor-specific extensions". -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
