W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-css@w3.org > June 2001

Re: CSS validator

From: Klaus Birkenbihl <Klaus.Birkenbihl@w3c.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 17:29:01 +0200
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010627165602.0320be40@kaa.gmd.de>
To: www-validator-css@w3.org
Cc: Klaus Birkenbihl <Klaus.Birkenbihl@w3c.de>
Dear all,

I didn' intent to send the original mail to the list. I simply
clicked "Philippe Le Hégaret & Sijtsche de Jong" at the bottom
of the validator page and reached the list. OK, here we go on:

>At 20:26 26.06.01 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>* Klaus Birkenbihl wrote:
>>Hi Philippe,
>>
>>you offer to include
>>
>><p> <a href="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/"> <img style="border:0;width:88px;height:31px" src="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/images/vcss" alt="Valid CSS!"> </a> </p>
>>
>>into CSS validated docs. Unfortunately this is not valid XHTML.
>>(Missing end tag for <img>)
>
>Yes, and if there was <img /> it wouldn't fit for HTML documents. You
>are suggesting to propose different code samples for XHTML and HTML
>documents?

I do not stick to an implementation my first concern is that the user
is not trapped by the following sequence:
 * user calls CSS validation
 * CSS validation says "hey go and validate your html first"
 * user calls html validation
 * validator says "great your doc is correct XHTML"
 * user copies the "xhtml" validator logo into his document
 * user calls CSS validation
 * CSS says "great"
 * user copies CSS validator logo into his document
 * user publishes his document
customer calls users page:
 * customer states: user claims to send valid xhtml
 * customer clicks the xhtml validator logo to check ...

Implementations:
 a) a bold disclaimer "don't use this without modification for XHTML"
    might work - but is not very friendly to XHTML users
 b) different code samples would be easy and moderately friendly
 c) if a doctype can be found a customized code sample would be luxorious

But since "c)" would still need "b)" for stand alone CSS-Files "b)" might be
appropriate. This would also allow to conform to coding suggestions
of the standard: (HTML tag should be upper case XHTML must be lower case).

Meanwhile the English version is conformant (only) to XHTML while the
German version supports (only) HTML. A bit more confusing ...

Best regards, Klaus

Btw. The CSS Validator (German Version) cannot verify itself:

  Error
  Target: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator-uri.html
  Please, validate your XML document first!
  Line 29
  Column 17
  An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0xfc) was found in the element
    content of the document.

Klaus Birkenbihl
W3C Deutsches Büro
mailto:Klaus.Birkenbihl@w3c.de
http://www.w3c.de
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2001 11:28:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 June 2012 00:13:59 GMT