Problems with the mobileOK validator

Most other validators and analyzers have this problem too, but it  
seems like it should be corrected. If CSS is supposed to allow images  
to have height and width values associated with classes or IDs, why  
does the mobileOK validator just completely over look this? I always  
wind up having issues with the being no height and width values even  
though I have them set in the stylesheet.

I suddenly got another problem with one of my stylesheets showing up  
as not syntactically valid, but when I use the CSS validator, it works  
just fine as do all of my other stylesheets. In fact, the only thing  
I've done thus far to change things on my website is add in a  
mobile.css file along with the master.css file which is called  
whenever someone's on the mobile site. Since it validates properly, I  
figure it shouldn't pull up errors either in the mobileOK validator.

It noted this:
The style sheets contain syntax errors, and thus are likely to create  
problems with some browsers.
Use the W3C CSS Validator to find and correct CSS syntax errors.
Triggered  by http://m.kevinghadyani.com/mobile.css.

Related best practice:
[CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT]
         Send content in a format that is known to be supported by the  
device.
But my CSS file is only 4 entries that properly validate:
p.mobile {
	margin:0 auto;
	width:auto;
	text-align:center;
	color:#adadad;
}

p.mobileleft{
	margin:0 auto;
	width:auto;
	text-align:left;
	color:#adadad;
}

p.mobileinfochoices {
	margin:0 auto;
	width:auto;
	text-align:center;
	font-weight:bold;
	color:#adadad;
}

h1 {
	margin:0 auto;
	width:auto;
}
And then it goes ahead and makes a comment of about the set height and  
width in my master.css which, surprisingly, has the height and width  
values of the images it claimed I was lacking.

Then it warns me that I don't have the right character encoding or  
something like that. It's actually quite confusing to understand: "The  
resource does not specify UTF-8 as character encoding". The validator  
for XHTML 1.1 and XHTML-MP 1.2 both don't throw up warnings for this,  
and it's actually in my code <meta http-equiv="Content-type"  
content="<? meta() ?>;charset=utf-8" /> so I don't know what the  
mobileOK validator is complaining about.

It notes my master.css file has position:relative in there 3 times.  
That's correct. I'm unsure if I actually need those in my master.css  
anyway, but since my site works fine on all devices I've tested on, I  
do not know if it's safe to remove it. This warning is repeated when  
it states: "The CSS Style contains at-rules, properties, or values  
that may not be supported" and shows me the 3 lines that says  
"position" in the master.css file.

There's an image error because my images are PNG instead of GIF or  
JPEG. I'm fine with that because out of the multitude of devices I've  
used, PNGs work fine if only a bit messy if transparency is used so  
this error I'd prefer to see as a warning but it's fine.

It has another complaint about character encoding: "The HTTP Content- 
Type header does not specify a character encoding and no UTF-8  
encoding or a non-UTF-8 is specified in the XML declaration". I assume  
my lack of an <?xml ?> character encoding declaration is the problem  
even though I have UTF-8 specified in the HTML? From reading the W3C's  
reports, it seems like the <?xml ?> header is negligible and a problem  
to IE uses of all kinds, that's why the standard was rectified to  
allow the DOCTYPE first. If needed, I can use PHP to fix it so only IE  
doesn't display it since I have IE to render the page as text/html  
anyway.

I get an error that says I am using "no-cache" or "max-age=0". In  
fact, that's wrong: <meta http-equiv="Cache-Control" content="max- 
age=64000" />. It complains about Pragma, but I don't even use that or  
know it's usage. It says my Expires header contains a date in the past  
even though I don't use it either. Both say "Triggered  by the  
resource under test." I have no clue what that means.

The page is served as:"application/vnd.wap.xhtml+
xml" but it asks for "application/xhtml+xml". Is it wrong to serve  
XHTML-MP 1.2 as "application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml"?

I'm pretty sure it's just me, and that I've done something screwy on  
my end, but truth be told, if I don't say anything, an actual  
validator issue could go overlooked.

Thank you for your help and reading this over,
-- Kevin Ghadyani