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

RE: Warnings with valid background-color

From: Matt LaPlante <mcd@cyberdogtech.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:18:40 -0400
To: "'Jukka K. Korpela'" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Cc: <www-validator-css@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c5d3a3$670afaf0$fe04a8c0@cyberdogt42>

Well I think the best course of action would be to differentiate between
technical "warnings" and style "warnings".  I do not wish to block all
warnings.  In fact, the validator did catch an invalid font family name I
had been using, and reported it as a "warning," which I subsequently
corrected.  I think the problem is we've got two categories under one
heading.  I think it would be great to have an option to ignore these style
warnings, but I don't want to have to do it at the cost of spec warnings,
which I actually care about.  

I avoided forwarding the entire previous email text again, but I would like
to address one comment here:
"100% undeniably valid" is a strong statement, especially when the
specifications have quite a lot of room for interpretation."

I don't see what needs to be interpreted.  I can reference a document as
follows, for example:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/colors.html#background-properties

And this will display in no uncertain terms the name of a property and the
valid and invalid values for that property. Here, we clearly have
background-color as the property with <color>, transparent, or inherit as
values.  This is quite clear and straight forward, and I hardly see it as
something needing further interpretation.  It's all set in writing by a
standards body; you hardly get more well defined than that.  

-
Matt
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 18:23:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 June 2012 00:14:16 GMT