Re: [CSS21] Are vendor-specific extensions invalid?

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
> 
> Ingo Chao wrote:
>> Are vendor-specific extensions invalid? Or are they valid because the
>>  format they should have is defined in the specification, so the 
>> grammar is correct?
> 
> The CSS 2.1 specification says:
> 
> "The validity of a style sheet depends on the level of CSS used for the 
> style sheet".
> 
> The specification also says:
> 
> "A valid CSS 2.1 style sheet must be written according to the grammar of 
> CSS 2.1. Furthermore, it must contain only at-rules, property names, and 
> property values defined in this specification. An illegal (invalid) 
> at-rule, property name, or property value is one that is not valid."
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/conform.html
> 
> If this statement is taken to the letter, although the specification 
> describes how to parse vendor-specific properties, the property names 
> and values of vendor-specific extensions are not defined in the 
> specification, so they are invalid CSS 2.1.
> 
> The CSS validator correctly flags vendor-specific extensions in CSS 2.1 
> stylesheets as errors.

I guess a WARNING instead of an ERROR for these cases would be better, 
would it not? A  sheet would still not be "valid" - just "wellformed" 
though.

Christof


> 
> They might conform to some other, hypothetical, CSS level, however.
> 
> -- 
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 
> 270.5.6/1575 - Release Date: 26.07.2008 16:18
> 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 27 July 2008 13:38:07 UTC