W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2005

Re: [validator] Proprietary extensions

From: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:46:43 +0300
Message-ID: <434BC243.5050200@peda.net>
To: www-style@w3.org

Jens Meiert wrote:
>>>They work in IE, but they're not valid...hence the validator is 
>>>behaving correctly. "Clearly work" does not necessarily mean valid.
>>Maybe validator could be extended to add such description when 
>>reporting error? (same for behavior, filter, -moz-, -o-, etc.)
> The validator aims to look for specification compliance, at least this is
> what it should do. Though proprietary extensions are generally allowed [1],
> they are not part of the specification, so the validator would then only
> check for correct syntax.
> Also, how would you decide what proprietary properties to be added? Only
> Gecko supported properties using the "-moz-" prefix? Gecko and Microsoft
> properties? Others as well? Where to get the information on changes and
> additions?
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#q4

I think validator should regognize proprietary extensions as 
described in the spec. That is, scrollbar-related stuff should *not* 
be regognized as a proprietary extension. On the other hand, stuff 
like -xyz-property-name and _xyz-property-name should be marked as 
proprietary. For example, it currently gives error

   Property -moz-border-radius doesn't exist : 0.5em

whereas it could return only warning

   Only syntax checked for proprietary extension: -moz-border-radius

Validator could also strip the vendor identifier from proprietary 
properties and then try to validate the remaining property. For 
example, "-moz-border-radius: 1em" would be mapped to 
"border-radius: 1em". This way, some of the vendor extensions could 
be sort-of-validated.

Also, the warning about proprietary "-vnd-border-radius" could be 
silenced if the same rule also has declaration for "border-radius", 
especially if both have the same value... In this case, it should be 
safe to assume that vendor extension has been used for better 
compatibility only.

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2005 13:46:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:21 UTC