[Bug 8625] New: Possibility not to resolve @import (and other URLs) during CSS validation

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8625

           Summary: Possibility not to resolve @import (and other URLs)
                    during CSS validation
           Product: CSSValidator
           Version: CSS Validator
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Parser
        AssignedTo: dave.null@w3.org
        ReportedBy: fd@w3.org
         QAContact: www-validator-cvs@w3.org


Description
-----
One may sometimes want to manage resources retrieval on its own, including
resolution of @import rules, and run the CSS validator on each of the
resources. As an example, the mobileOK Checker that performs various tests on
the HTTP headers sent when stylesheets are retrieved, and thus already
retrieves images and stylesheets that are referenced in the CSS content.

Additionally, as described in Bug 8624, there may be cases when the URL of the
CSS content that is being validated is unknown.

In these cases, the caller does not want the CSS validator to resolve and
retrieve URLs that appear in the CSS content, but merely to validate its
syntax. There is no proper way to forbid the CSS validator from processing
@import rules right now. The only way I am aware of is to provide the
org.w3c.css.css.StyleSheetParser.StyleSheetParser#parseStyleElement method with
a "file" URL, as the "file" scheme seems to be used to indicate that "direct
input" was used, which is not so great.


Suggested functionality
-----
Add a validation flag that instructs the CSS validator to ignore URLs that
appear in the CSS content when set.


Additional note
-----
This request for enhancement is somewhat related to Bug 8624 in that resolution
of relative URIs that may be used in @import rules is de facto impossible if
the base URL is not provided.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 12:03:22 UTC