Soeren Mordhorst wrote: > > In this case my question would be: Why should I define a > background-color, if the background-color > that should be used is already defined in the body-element?
Short answer - because the validator only checks one rule at a time. It does not remember you had already defined it. It's a good warning, though. If a background color is not set anywhere on a page, the browser defaults to its own setting. That could be any color at all. Ric Raftis replied: > .... Best way around this I have found is to use background-color: > inherit; and the warning will be removed. But be aware that this may cover up a background image set in an underlying element. I suggest "transparent" if you feel you need it-- this is the default value. I suggest you don't accept the validator as "gospel". It occasionally makes mistakes too (but rarely). Use it as an excellent tool to discover errors that may give you grief if not fixed. It can save hours of debugging time! :-) Cordially, David -- David Hucklesby, on 3/3/2006 <http://www.hucklesby.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 ******************************************************
