W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > February 2006

Re: Error Message Feedback: text/css not currently supported.

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:58:22 +0100
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
cc: www-validator@w3.org, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Message-ID: <A0202000e-1044-4F09947A571D4A77BB9261D82E956B0E@pounder.neutri.no>

Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:

>>While there is, obviously, a W3C CSS validator, the W3C Markup
>>Validation Service does not, for obvious reasons, support checking CSS.
>
>I think it should. There should be one W3C service which accepts all
>sorts of W3C documents for validation.

Oh, I agree (to a degree, but still). In an ideal world...


>I don't think it's a good idea for the browser to maintain a table of
>which W3C validation server accepts which formats -- this can easily be
>processed on the server side, no?

FSVO “easily”.

I'm not sure “maintain a table” is a descriptive way of putting it though. We're
here talking about two, possibly three, URLs which have been stable over many
years and which have the benefit of the W3C disinclination to invalidate URLs.

And IIRC, Opera in particular maintains the relevant URL in something akin to an
internal stylesheet (ISTR someone mentioned a way for a user to alter it to talk
to the then current beta version of the validator).

While we ideally would be able to provide a common frontend to all the
validation and QA tools — for user interface purposes, primarily — I don't think
it would be excessively onerous for an UA vendor to dispatch based on the
content type client side (unlike using SOAP or providing an extended user
interface, which was the context last we talked of this).

-- 
  “If at first you don't succeed, keep shooting.”  -- monk
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 23:02:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:20 GMT