- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:18:18 +0300 (EEST)
- To: Matt LaPlante <mcd@cyberdogtech.com>
- Cc: www-validator-css@w3.org
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Matt LaPlante wrote: > Well I think the best course of action would be to differentiate between > technical "warnings" and style "warnings". First you complained about non-objective warnings. Now you want to have two kinds of 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 have no idea of what you are referring to, since you give no actual facts about the incident. > I avoided forwarding the entire previous email text again, but I would like > to address one comment here: It's one that was already commented on, and the comments commented on. I'm not going to repeat. I will just correct one factual error: > It's all set in writing by a standards body; It isn't. The W3C is not a standards body. It's an industry consortium that produces "recommendations", among other things. (I refrain commenting on the authoritative status of CSS "recommendations"; it's so sad history.) -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 19:18:45 UTC