- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:45:27 +0300 (EEST)
- To: Texas Crazy <howdy@texascrazy.com>
- Cc: www-validator-css@w3.org
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Texas Crazy wrote: > When I ran the validator a "warning came up with a message that is confusing > and may be taken in two opposing ways: > > a.. Line : 0 font-family: You are encouraged to offer a generic family as a > last alternative The content of that suggestion is so debatable that I would suggest that this particular test be removed. It confuses people, especially since most style sheets contain real errors and problems that need attention, and the "CSS Validator" does a very useful job in reporting them. The difference between, say, font-family: Arial and font-family: Arial, sans-serif is that the former says "please use Arial if you can; otherwise use whatever font you were about to use" whereas the latter says "please use Arial if you can; otherwise use the typical sans-serif font that you have been configured to use". It is questionable whether the latter is better even in principle, in general. And in practice, it invokes both some browser bugs in dealing with generic font names and some odd choices in browsers - the defaults for their meanings are often relatively unsuitable fonts, and IE, the most common browser, does not even let the user change these defaults. There are situations where a generic family name as the last option is suitable. But it surely violates no specification to omit it. And if a program called "validator" issues a warning, I think it is fair to assume that is should identify a potential _error_, or at least a real _risk_ (like the risk in setting color without setting background). > Does this message mean "always ADD a font-family to every text related > option"? No, and I have never thought it could be interpreted that way. But maybe I'm used to reading the messages, where the fake line number reference is followed by the name of the property that the message relates to. > Secondly and more importantly, since I am now a bit confused by the warning > readout, I would suggest a related "details" hyperlink be placed inline in > the warning section by each error message That would be nice if done properly, but I'm afraid it's unrealistic to expect such a development. It means a lot of work, especially since the information should be concise, understandable, and correct - these three seldom meet. :-( -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2004 19:45:32 UTC