On 7 Jan 2006, at 3:35 pm, Lynne Pope wrote:
On 1/7/06, Gunlaug Sørtun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is not as easy to hide proprietary and 'not-yet-recommended'
CSS from
the validator, as it is with all the garbage often needed to make
IE/win
behave.
OTOH: hiding something in a conditional comment (or in a 'non-
existent
stylesheet', like I do at times) doesn't make it more valid - just
hidden.
Conditional statements are not hidden, they just do whatever you code
them to do. They are a valid markup.
Conditional Comments are indeed valid markup. The point here is that,
it is a comment, and anything within a cc it is hidden from (X)HTML
compliant browsers. Only IE for Windows can take a peak at it. Thus
yes, style within a CC is hidden from the validators.
BTW: non-valid CSS doesn't affect HTML/XHTML status/validity at all.
True. However, if we are coding to standards then it pays to be aware
of any coding errors in css. You can't look at each standard in a
vacuum.
Whatever your css contains won't affect the validity of your (X)HTML.
Then, to what Standards are you coding your CSS : CSS 2.0, CSS 2.1
CSS3 ?
CSS 2.0 is a hopeless mess, CSS 2.1 is a bit better but still full of
contradictions and undefined behaviour. The only part of the whole
CSS thing that is pretty stable is the CSS selectors module.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/>
And when you validate a stylesheet, against what do you validate ?
In my case you'd need to check against CSS 3, and even then, you
better check against the respective docs (various versions) because
the W3C validator doesn't know or support those (namespaces,
mediaquerries, css-text amongst them).
The text-justify property you mention in a previous message is
included in one of those (draft) docs and currently only implemented
by MS IE win.
It does not validate at all as HTML 4.01 Strict - are you sure you
are checking validation against that DOCTYPE?
This sounds a bit strange to me.
Which source-code should be checked as HTML4.01?
Given the fact that the validator is fed an XHTML1.1 page with the
correct MIME-type by default, is it even possible to check that
source-code as HTML? I would think not.
Enforcing the validator wouldn't work - and it shouldn't since the
source-code isn't 'HTML4.01 Anything' when it's served to the
validator.
And your point is? I made the comment that the site does not validate
as HTML 4.01, did you see me say how I validated it? Anyone designing
a site to render as one DOCTYPE in some browsers and another DOCTYPE
for other browsers, and who wishes to have the pages validate against
both DOCTYPES would, I assume, check the validation for both.
This can be done in many ways, such as entering the source code, or in
cases where the person looking at the code is sufficiently
experienced, just looking can show there are errors.
I manually validated 3 random pages from Bobby's site: accessing the
page with an older browser, copy the source code and pasting that
into the textarea of my local copy of the W3C validator (@v 0.7.1):
all validated correctly as html 401 strict.
Georg point is: if you send a url to the validator, it will validate
against xhtml, because that is the way the data is sent to it (with
mime type application xhtml+xml).
Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
<http://emps.l-c-n.com/>
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
