Re: Floats need explicit width??

And Philip,

I would disagree that there was an agreement to generate an 
informational message.  There was a suggestion from one party - that's all.

I actually think it pointless.

CSS 2.1 is CSS 2.1.

Generate a warning for earlier versions of CSS.  Don't for CSS 2.1 upwards.

End of.

Regards,
Paul McKeown.

Paul McKeown (Tiscali) wrote:
> Philip,
>
> There was no agreement that the warning was in any way correct in CSS 
> 2.1; the behaviour of the validator simply defies the specification.
>
> My observations regarding behaviour of browsers was simply a response 
> to previous bleather by other correspondents - please review the thread.
>
> Personally all I care about is the correct behaviour of the validator 
> - and your sharp toned response to my request is unhelpful, in my view.
>
> It should be possible, in my opinion, to toggle off an informational 
> message, if any are generated.
>
>
> Regards.
>
> Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote:
>> Agreed, but I /think/ we agreed in the previous
>> iteration of this discussion that it should be
>> informational rather than a warning /qua/ warning,
>> did we not ?
>>
>> Philip TAYLOR
>> --------
>> David Dorward wrote:
>>> Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote:
>>>> The validator's sole purpose is to flag what is, and what is
>>>> not, conformant, and specifically /not/ to flag
>>>> what might cause problems in one or more browsers.
>>> Warnings tend to cover issues of best practice and potential 
>>> problems rather than conformance issues (which should be errors).
>>>
>>
>>
>
>