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

Re: Typo in alt attribute

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:59:29 +0300
Message-ID: <A5F2F46ABB334420B3000455450F0967@JukanPC>
To: <www-validator-css@w3.org>
Andreas Prilop wrote:

> but "(in)valid" is still "(un)gültig" in German.

I am in no position to take a position on German usage of words, but I think 
this little discussion demonstrates well some of the problems of "Valid CSS" 
icons. The very word "valid" is obscure even in English - sometimes it means 
something that meets very specific criteria (valid ticket, valid XML 
document), but probably more often, it means just "good", "nice", "OK". For 
example, what constitutes a valid argument? Whatever someone decides to 
accept, for unspecified reasons.

Although the word "valid" is justified in SGML and XML context, it tends to 
cause just confusion even there, and much more so in the CSS context. What 
the "CSS Validator" means by calling a style sheet valid is that the style 
sheet does not contain any formal error to the extent that the "CSS 
Validator" can verify things. It says nothing about suitability to any 
particular purpose, or about any quality matters, beyond the simple (though 
important as such) point of avoiding syntax errors.

Of course, we can avoid much of the mess by staying away from "Valid CSS" 
icons. I just found an interesting rant on them:
http://meiert.com/en/blog/20070309/valid-css-and-similar-claims-are-unprofessional/

Well, one might make the valid (?) counterargument that many, if not most, 
web pages use style sheets that contain syntax errors, so being valid _is_ 
something positive as compared with the general level. And the "CSS 
Validator" could be a useful tool there. But claiming that your CSS is valid 
is really pointless.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 
Received on Saturday, 18 July 2009 14:00:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 June 2012 00:14:24 GMT