W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-css@w3.org > August 2012

Re: W3C CSS Validator suggestions - rgba - vendor specific

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:38:52 -0400 (EDT)
To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
cc: Denis TRUFFAUT <denis.truffaut@outlook.com>, "www-validator-css@w3.org" <www-validator-css@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1208290637330.2859@wnl.j3.bet>
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Philip TAYLOR wrote:

> Denis TRUFFAUT wrote:
>
>> I have 2 suggestions :
>> 
>> *1 - text-shadow with rgba colors should pass the validation.* It is
>> allowed for colors, so why not for shadows ? Plus, it is part of the
>> CSS3 specification ! Ex :  text-shadow : 0 0 5px rgba(0,0,0,0.5);
>
>
> There does indeed seem to be a bug in the validator here;
> the first passes validation, while the second does not :
>
> .foo {Box-shadow: 64px 64px 12px 40px rgba(0,0,0,0.4),
>           12px 12px 0px 8px rgba(0,0,0,0.4) inset}
>
> .foo {Text-shadow: 64px 64px 12px 40px rgba(0,0,0,0.4),
>           12px 12px 0px 8px rgba(0,0,0,0.4) inset}
>
> Example taken from http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-box-shadow,
> http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-text/, Section 10.3. Text Shadows: the
> ?text-shadow? property states :
>
>> This property accepts a comma-separated list of shadow effects to be
>> applied to the text of the element. Values are interpreted as for
>> ?box-shadow?. [CSS3BG]

The values are interpreted the same way, but there are only 3 lengthes 
allowed in text-shadow (and no inset).
All the validator instances were updated today with new code for 
text-shadow.
Cheers,

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 10:38:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 August 2012 10:39:05 GMT