- From: Matt LaPlante <mcd@cyberdogtech.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:18:40 -0400
- To: "'Jukka K. Korpela'" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: <www-validator-css@w3.org>
Well I think the best course of action would be to differentiate between technical "warnings" and style "warnings". I do not wish to block all warnings. In fact, the validator did catch an invalid font family name I had been using, and reported it as a "warning," which I subsequently corrected. I think the problem is we've got two categories under one heading. I think it would be great to have an option to ignore these style warnings, but I don't want to have to do it at the cost of spec warnings, which I actually care about. I avoided forwarding the entire previous email text again, but I would like to address one comment here: "100% undeniably valid" is a strong statement, especially when the specifications have quite a lot of room for interpretation." I don't see what needs to be interpreted. I can reference a document as follows, for example: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/colors.html#background-properties And this will display in no uncertain terms the name of a property and the valid and invalid values for that property. Here, we clearly have background-color as the property with <color>, transparent, or inherit as values. This is quite clear and straight forward, and I hardly see it as something needing further interpretation. It's all set in writing by a standards body; you hardly get more well defined than that. - Matt
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 18:23:14 UTC