- From: Paul McKeown (Tiscali) <ppjmckeown@tiscali.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:22:50 +0100
- To: "Paul McKeown (Tiscali)" <ppjmckeown@tiscali.co.uk>
- CC: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>, "www-validator-css@w3.org" <www-validator-css@w3.org>
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). >>> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 11:25:33 UTC