Re: That's not even my CSS! Aieee.

Oh, that explains everything.

It's just that the ./chalo page has been the same way for a long time
(it's script generated) and I was almost certain it was buggy because
the report changed when the actual site hadn't changed a single line
of code.

With no indicator that the CSS validator had changed its validation
scheme, I had no clue where it was sourcing these errors from.  As I
said, only a week or two previous I was getting 100% validation on
both pages.


On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:50:18 +0200, Jens Brueckmann <lists@j-a-b.net> wrote:
> > Just out of curiousity, I decided to try running the validator over my
> > local mirror.
> >
> > http://mastaile.mine.nu/chalo/
> >
> > Anyway, it doesn't validate.
> >
> > The kicker is that the errors are different to the ones I get for
> > katbox.net, even though the files are exactly the same (aside from the
> > image locations, ../ on the server and ../images/ on my mirror).
> >
> > This has to be a bug in the validator.  There is no 'width' on line
> > 160 -- because there is no line 160.
> 
> When validating the whole page instead of only the CSS-file inline-styles
> of the HTML elements are validated as well.
> A quick glance at your markup reveals the errors shown in the CSS
> Validator.
> 
> On http://www.katbox.net/
> 
>         line 103: the inline style for the images is lacking a padding-right value
> 
> On http://mastaile.mine.nu/chalo/
> 
>         line 157: width and height attributes of the inline style have no unit set
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> jens
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
> 



-- 
"That rock over there is really a well-disguised Turtle."

Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2004 12:42:18 UTC