W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-css@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Floats need explicit width??

From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:34:44 +0100
Message-ID: <49D9E8D4.7080806@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: "Paul McKeown (Tiscali)" <ppjmckeown@tiscali.co.uk>
CC: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>, "www-validator-css@w3.org" <www-validator-css@w3.org>


Paul McKeown (Tiscali) wrote:

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

I respectfully disagree.  I made the suggestion (that the
message be an informational one) and Douglas Perreault
confirmed that he agreed with the suggestion :

> In any case, what I was really looking for was an "informational" message as
> Phillip was describing. Personally I don't consider a warning the same as an
> error. My opinion, but I see no reason why, for example, I have to describe
> a background color and a color if the background color is already defined
> elsewhere. It's just extra bandwidth wasted. I know it's not good form, but
> most of the pages I create are simple and we're interested in small size,
> rather than verbose explicit declarations. So when I see that warning, I
> ignore it unless it's convenient to address it directly.
> 
> However, I do see your point. Since CSS 2.1 does not require explicit
> widths, the "warning" is incorrect. But an informational message would be
> still be nice in my opinion.

Philip TAYLOR
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 11:35:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 June 2012 00:14:23 GMT