W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > July to September 2008


From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:34:33 +0100
Message-ID: <486E34F9.9090801@mtld.mobi>
To: Abel Rionda <abel.rionda@fundacionctic.org>
CC: public-mobileok-checker <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>, public-bpwg-comments@w3.org

Hi Abel

Aaargh, now that you point it out, the text of this test needs changing.

Specifically the Note is wrong as STYLE_SHEET_USE-5 specifically tests 
for properties that are not defined in CSS Level 1. So delete that note.

There is a difference between STYLE_SHEET_USE-5, STYLE_SHEET_USE-6

color: orangey-blue;  /* not a recognized value */

color: thin; /* a recognized value but not appropriate to color */

color: 22; /* ditto */

If anything I'd say that STYLE_SHEET_USE-7 and STYLE_SHEET_USE-8 are 
both contained in STYLE_SHEET_USE-6.

border-width: 22; /* requires a unit but doesn't have one */

border-width: 22Hz;  /* has the wrong type of unit, though actually I am 
not sure this can happen in CSS 1 */

I would not be at all bothered if we combined all these into a single 
clause, however it would have to remain a warn ...

... ref the checker's CSS validator. The whole discussion about CSS (if 
I recall correctly) came up as a Last Call comment from Bert Bos. And 
(again, if I remember correctly) we agreed to change. I don't know how 
we could ignore that now. In any case, it is quite simply wrong to fail 
on unknown properties etc. it's very much the intention of CSS that a 
CSS2 style sheet works just fine in CSS1 simply by ignoring the stuff 
that is not understood.

So the most we can and should do is warn -- unless there is a basic 
syntax error like

zillon {planet:tharg {

in which case we should FAIL.

Can you tell the difference between that type of error and one of the 
STYLE_SHEET_USE types of error?


On 04/07/2008 12:25, Abel Rionda wrote:
> Hi Jo,
>> This is particularly fraught since CSS is by design open-ended so 
>> outside of the syntax requiring certain combinations of valid tokens
> and 
>> punctuation, almost Anything Goes [1].
> Yes, indeed. BTW, great song that reminds me of the opening scene of
> Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom...
> So the definition of valid CSS under 2.4.8 is a simple syntax checking
> without lexical checking at all. I think that call this "CSS Valid" is a
> bit confusing for the user (CSS Valid would be inferred by the user as
> *valid* as the spec of the CSS Level x states). 
> Besides the special CSS Validity, STYLE_SHEETS_USE is still duplicating
> some checks.  This test has a note regarding CSS properties that are
> defined or not on Level 1:
> "Note: The tests on CSS property values only apply to properties defined
> by CSS Level 1; other properties are ignored for the purposes of this
> test."
> Having this note on mind and applying the following checks, 
> --
> "If the CSS Style contains at-rules (other than the @media at-rule, and
> the media list of the @import at-rule), properties, or values that are
> not recognized as being specified in CSS Level 1, warn
> If the CSS Style contains a property with a value that is inappropriate
> to it, warn"
> --
> Some questions come to my mind:
> Is the same "not recognized" and "inappropriate"?, could a "not
> recognized" value be appropriate?, I don't think so.
> The first check contains the second one. Any warn reported by the second
> will be also reported by the first. There are the following
> possibilities:
> - In case of a CSS Level 1 property with a "not recognized" value, both
> checks apply.
> - If the case is a non CSS Level 1 property the first check will report
> a warn but, as stated by the special note, the second one will be
> ignored.
> Also both "not recognized" and "inappropriate" terms should be
> clarified, i.e. is a font-size value of 1000px inappropriate? , is
> "inappropriate" used as a synonym of a non CSS Level 1 valid value?
> Anyway, I think we are going to run into problems in the current checker
> implementation:
> -I do no see a way to deactivate these features in our CSS validation
> tool (CSS Validator makes a complete grammar validation) and making an
> ad-hoc solution would tale a considerable development effort.
> Particularly, STYLE_SHEETS_USE test (currently these subtests are not
> made) is going to be hard to implement basing on the checker design and
> our limited time to dedicate to this.
> I am not sure what the best decision on this is if we want to release
> checker in a reasonable time.
> Regards,
> Abel.
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi] 
> Enviado el: viernes, 04 de julio de 2008 11:00
> Para: Abel Rionda
> CC: public-mobileok-checker; public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
> Asunto: Re: STYLE_SHEETS_USE test
> Hi Abel
> We jumped through a couple of hoops of fire around this subject possibly
> during LC-1 or LC-2 (the mobileOK Jurassic Period, perhaps). As far as I
> can recall the question was around exactly what is meant by "valid 
> CSS1". This is particularly fraught since CSS is by design open-ended so
> outside of the syntax requiring certain combinations of valid tokens and
> punctuation, almost Anything Goes [1].
> Consequently, we have the definition of valid CSS under 2.4.8:
>      A resource is considered a valid CSS resource if it conforms to the
> grammar defined in [CSS], Appendix B (see note below), except that 
> @media at-rules, which are not part of the grammar, are allowed and are 
> not considered invalid. The presence of at-rules, properties or values 
> or combinations of properties and values that are not specified in [CSS]
> does not constitute a validity failure for CSS. See 3.21 
> STYLE_SHEETS_USE for treatment of such values. In addition, the @media 
> at-rule and the presentation media list for the @import at-rule are 
> taken into account when evaluating CSS.
> [I've just  spotted that the clause "see note below" is a dangling 
> reference and needs to be removed.]
> So I think what is happening here is that the checker CSS Validation 
> that is being carried out is actually stricter than that implied by 
> CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT and is potentially mis-reporting inappropriate 
> combinations of properties and values as failures under that heading. 
> They should in fact be reported under STYLE_SHEETS_USE.
> Note particularly that it is not invalid to use properties that are not 
> known in CSS1, e.g.
> klingon {foo: bar;
>      distance: 3light-years;
> }
> is valid, though it contains properties values and units that are not 
> defined in CSS1.
> Hence the warns rather than the failures in STYLE_SHEETS_USE.
> Jo
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anything_Goes_%28song%29
> On 04/07/2008 09:17, Abel Rionda wrote:
>> Hi,
>> While we were reviewing the test implementation status in checker
> code,
>> we found out some checks 
>> of STYLE_SHEETS_USE regarding CSS values that we would like to comment
>> [1]:
>> [begin STYLE_SHEETS_USE fragment]
>> If the CSS Style contains a property with a value that is
> inappropriate
>> to it, warn
>> If the CSS Style contains a property with a value that requires a unit
>> or a percentage:
>>       If the unit (or percentage) is not present, warn
>>       If the unit (or percentage) is inappropriate to the value, warn
>> [end STYLE_SHEETS_USE fragment]
>> All these checks are already made during grammar validation test
>> (CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT) and they would raise a *FAIL* (while in
>> STYLE_SHEETS_USE at most we would get a *warn*)
>> We do not see any benefit of this duplicity and, furthermore, due to
>> they raise different level errors, it might lead the user to
> confusion.
>> Regards,
>> Abel.
>> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20080610/#STYLE_SHEE
Received on Friday, 4 July 2008 14:35:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:50 UTC