W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-css@w3.org > June 2007

Re: BOM

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:10:30 +0900
Message-Id: <3E676CC5-ED1D-4442-9122-2EDDD95D3503@w3.org>
Cc: "'Jan Eliasen'" <jan@eliasen.dk>, <www-validator-css@w3.org>
To: Douglas Perreault <doug@perreault.us>

Hi all,

Thanks for your messages on this issue. I can tell the discussion got  
a little heated, but in the end I think good information was  
exchanged and some people got help on setting their charset ;).

Now onto the actual issue with the validator...

On Jun 27, 2007, at 23:56 , Douglas Perreault wrote:
> What remains a problem is the CSS validator.
> [...]
> Run that through the validator and you will get a parse error.
>
> Take that same CSS file, but re-arrange it, and I get a "valid" CSS  
> file,
> though the "p" tag still shows the square boxes from the BOM. See
> http://dev.inbliss.info/UTF1.css as an example.
>
> The only difference between those two files is that an @media section
> doesn't start off the CSS file that validates.

You're right Douglas, regardless of whether or not a BOM is a good or  
bad thing, false negatives in the validator because of a BOM is a bug.

I've just entered a bug report on this, and a couple of test cases,  
thanks to all the good info I could gather from your message and  
others in this thread:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4828

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/autotest/testsuite/bugs/4828- 
bom_atmedia.css
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/autotest/testsuite/bugs/4828- 
bom_notatmedia.css

We'll see how fast it can be fixed. In the meantime, at least the bug  
is recorded and testable.

Thank you.
-- 
olivier
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 01:10:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 June 2012 00:14:19 GMT