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

Re: Floats need explicit width??

From: Paul McKeown (Tiscali) <ppjmckeown@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:34:54 +0100
Message-ID: <BAY116-DAV24C1370A08BAD8466ADCA91840@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <49D9E8DE.4090308@tiscali.co.uk>
To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
CC: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>, "www-validator-css@w3.org" <www-validator-css@w3.org>
Philip,

The idea of generating an informational message was that "some browsers" 
allegedly had problems dealing with  floats without declared widths.  So 
- I didn't raise the subject and your idea that an agreement had been 
reached to generate an informational message was another correspondent's 
idea to remind himself to cater for these browsers.  My practical 
apporoach was to look to see which of these "some browsers" were 
affected.  Turns out not many - IE/Mac.  Perhaps some really old and 
totally extinct browsers which I haven't tested, but IE/Mac is the only 
one with real world relavance and that is already very limited and 
decreasing further.

I agree that the validator should be concerned only with the relevant 
specifications.

So why the reluctance to correct it in line with the spec for CSS 2.1?

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 11:38:30 GMT

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