- From: Ben Ward <benmward@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:03:00 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
> whereas it could return only warning > Only syntax checked for proprietary extension: -moz-border-radius > It doesn't sound unreasonable to return a better message when you can handle prop. extensions in that way. > Validator could also strip the vendor identifier from proprietary > properties and then try to validate the remaining property. For > example, "-moz-border-radius: 1em" would be mapped to > "border-radius: 1em". This way, some of the vendor extensions could > be sort-of-validated. That wouldn't be such a good idea though. Mozilla provide a good example in that, at time of writing, their implementation of CSS3 border-radius (-moz-border-radius) takes different parameters (or interprets them differently, one of them). They often use their prefix for testing stuff which, ultimatley, isn't guarenteed to be correct. If the CSS validator were to say 'Correct syntax is xyz' then it will only confuse users, since they could 'correct' their syntax and find that it behaves unexpectedly. So, yes giving some recognition of valid extension syntax would be welcome, but trying to make assumptions about how they might be used would be confusing. Ben http://ben-ward.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2005 15:03:11 UTC