> It's CSS validator. It doesn't validate cross-browser
> compatability or the logic (or existence of) of HTML tags.
Well perhaps your second point is valid (and well formed) but this
example:
body { background: url('image.gif')no-repeat top }
isn't just about cross-browser compatiblity. Surely without the
whitespace, it's actually invalid CSS? The same as it would be if
"no-repeat" and "top" appeared without space between?
And as for the logic of HTML tags, it would undeniably be a better
validator if it could warn "tag-based declaration doesn't match any
known HTML element", the way Perl's error reporting warns me about
variables I've created but never used, on the basis that it's probably a
typo.
==============================================================================
The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and
may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for
the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this
email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or
any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not
represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before
opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is
limited to resupplying any email and attachments
==============================================================================
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
