W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-css@w3.org > May 2006

Re: -1px is not a background-position value : left -1px

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 09:50:28 +0100
To: 24foikp02@sneakemail.com
Cc: www-validator-css@w3.org
Message-ID: <20060523085028.GA10632@us-lot.org>

On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:24:42AM -0700, 24foikp02@sneakemail.com wrote:
> > (I read the mailing list, please direct responses there and do not CC
> > me, thanks).

I wasn't kidding when I said this. I've CCed my response back to the
mailing list.
> You didn't seem to try to reproduce my error as you did not duplicate the
> code:

I based my code on your description of the problem. It wasn't my fault
your description failed to mention that you were mixing named
positions and lengths.

> background-position: left -1px;

>From the spec: 

  [ [<percentage> | <length> ]{1,2} | 
  [ [top | center | bottom] || [left | center | right] ] ] | inherit


This does now allow mixing named edges and lengths. The validator is
correct. That browsers can handle mixing named edges and lengths if a
case of error correction in the browser, not a problem with the spec
or with the validator.

CSS 2.1 *does* allow the mixing of named edges and lengths, but is
currently a working draft, so the validator does not default to using
CSS 2.1.


If you specify that you are using CSS 2.1 using the profile option in
the advanced interface, then it will accept that your code is valid.

> If you want email directed elsewhere, supply a different reply-to header.

People tend to get shouted at for setting reply-to headers to mailing
lists for email sent to mailing lists, so I find a polite request is a
better way to go.

> I don't read any lists and don't really have time to decipher what
> it is you're talking about exactly. 

There are precisely three email addresses involved in this discussion,
yours, one with my name in it, and one with name of the project in
it. It doesn't take a great deal of time to figure things out.

> Perhaps a better bug tracking system would be in your best interests
> since there's not exactly any shortage of free ones out there.

http://validator.w3.org/feedback.html links to the W3C Bugzilla

David Dorward                                      http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2006 08:50:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:42 UTC