- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:00:20 +0100
- To: Abel Rionda <abel.rionda@fundacionctic.org>
- CC: public-mobileok-checker <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>, public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
Hi Abel We jumped through a couple of hoops of fire around this subject possibly during LC-1 or LC-2 (the mobileOK Jurassic Period, perhaps). As far as I can recall the question was around exactly what is meant by "valid CSS1". This is particularly fraught since CSS is by design open-ended so outside of the syntax requiring certain combinations of valid tokens and punctuation, almost Anything Goes [1]. Consequently, we have the definition of valid CSS under 2.4.8: A resource is considered a valid CSS resource if it conforms to the grammar defined in [CSS], Appendix B (see note below), except that @media at-rules, which are not part of the grammar, are allowed and are not considered invalid. The presence of at-rules, properties or values or combinations of properties and values that are not specified in [CSS] does not constitute a validity failure for CSS. See 3.21 STYLE_SHEETS_USE for treatment of such values. In addition, the @media at-rule and the presentation media list for the @import at-rule are taken into account when evaluating CSS. [I've just spotted that the clause "see note below" is a dangling reference and needs to be removed.] So I think what is happening here is that the checker CSS Validation that is being carried out is actually stricter than that implied by CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT and is potentially mis-reporting inappropriate combinations of properties and values as failures under that heading. They should in fact be reported under STYLE_SHEETS_USE. Note particularly that it is not invalid to use properties that are not known in CSS1, e.g. klingon {foo: bar; distance: 3light-years; } is valid, though it contains properties values and units that are not defined in CSS1. Hence the warns rather than the failures in STYLE_SHEETS_USE. Jo [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anything_Goes_%28song%29 On 04/07/2008 09:17, Abel Rionda wrote: > Hi, > > While we were reviewing the test implementation status in checker code, > we found out some checks > of STYLE_SHEETS_USE regarding CSS values that we would like to comment > [1]: > > [begin STYLE_SHEETS_USE fragment] > > If the CSS Style contains a property with a value that is inappropriate > to it, warn > If the CSS Style contains a property with a value that requires a unit > or a percentage: > If the unit (or percentage) is not present, warn > If the unit (or percentage) is inappropriate to the value, warn > > [end STYLE_SHEETS_USE fragment] > > All these checks are already made during grammar validation test > (CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT) and they would raise a *FAIL* (while in > STYLE_SHEETS_USE at most we would get a *warn*) > We do not see any benefit of this duplicity and, furthermore, due to > they raise different level errors, it might lead the user to confusion. > > > Regards, > > Abel. > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20080610/#STYLE_SHEE > TS_USE >
Received on Friday, 4 July 2008 09:01:22 UTC