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: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:37:58 -0400
To: "'Jukka K. Korpela'" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Cc: <www-validator-css@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301c5d4e4$9c51b680$892f6640@cyberdogt42>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jukka K. Korpela [mailto:jkorpela@cs.tut.fi]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 3:18 PM
> To: Matt LaPlante
> Cc: www-validator-css@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Warnings with valid background-color
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Matt LaPlante wrote:
> > Well I think the best course of action would be to differentiate between
> > technical "warnings" and style "warnings".
> First you complained about non-objective warnings. Now you want to have
> two kinds of warnings.

No, I still think your style warnings are a waste of time altogether.  This
is called a "compromise."

> > 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 have no idea of what you are referring to, since you give no actual
> facts about the incident.

CSS gives specific generic-family attributes for fonts:

I had incorrectly used this attribute in my CSS, and the validator correctly
gave me a warning, allowing me to fix my error.  This is my point; you've
got errors based on the CSS recommendation, such as using an invalid
font-family, and errors based on style which are not covered in the
recommendation, under the same heading.

> > I avoided forwarding the entire previous email text again, but I would
> like
> > to address one comment here:
> It's one that was already commented on, and the comments commented on.
> I'm not going to repeat. I will just correct one factual error:
> > It's all set in writing by a standards body;
> It isn't. The W3C is not a standards body. It's an industry consortium
> that produces "recommendations", among other things. (I refrain commenting
> on the authoritative status of CSS "recommendations"; it's so sad
> history.)

Point for you, but then I have to question why certain web browser vendors
take such heat for adding their own embellishments upon a "recommendation"?
I believe it is because it's the closest thing available to a standard, and
therefore most developers will treat it as such.  Clearly much of the
technological community does not take kindly to 3rd parties making their own
interpretations on these documents.  And for anyone living under a rock, I'm
primarily referring to the IE/Mozilla/Opera situation, and the fact that by
your argument, Microsoft does little wrong by imposing their own varied
implementations of these recommendations... yet that is clearly not public

So, now at the risk of spawning further argument, I'll some up my argument
and we shall consider the matter resolved:

I use the CSS validator to check my CSS for compliance with the
"recommendation."  I am troubled by the fact that it issues "warnings" not
only for code which fails meeting the specification, but also for code which
entirely meets specification, yet is considered "bad practice."  I submit
that, as a compromise, these two topics could at the very least be given
different headings so that the user can clearly differentiate.  A
"validation warning" can be linked to the CSS specification demonstrating
why it is incorrect.  A "style warning" does not correspond directly to the
CSS specification, and would link to a written description of why it is bad
practice to implement.

There you have it, my view on the situation as a whole, take it as you will.

Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 19:44:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:41 UTC