W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2008

Re: [CSS21] Are vendor-specific extensions invalid?

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:21:15 +0100
Message-ID: <488C683B.1010902@googlemail.com>
To: Ingo Chao <i4chao@googlemail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Ingo Chao wrote:
> Are vendor-specific extensions invalid? Or are they valid because the
>  format they should have is defined in the specification, so the 
> grammar is correct?

The CSS 2.1 specification says:

"The validity of a style sheet depends on the level of CSS used for the 
style sheet".

The specification also says:

"A valid CSS 2.1 style sheet must be written according to the grammar of 
CSS 2.1. Furthermore, it must contain only at-rules, property names, and 
property values defined in this specification. An illegal (invalid) 
at-rule, property name, or property value is one that is not valid."

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/conform.html

If this statement is taken to the letter, although the specification 
describes how to parse vendor-specific properties, the property names 
and values of vendor-specific extensions are not defined in the 
specification, so they are invalid CSS 2.1.

The CSS validator correctly flags vendor-specific extensions in CSS 2.1 
stylesheets as errors.

They might conform to some other, hypothetical, CSS level, however.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2008 12:21:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:10 GMT