- From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:53:36 +0100
- To: www-validator-css@w3.org
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 09:34:16AM -0400, Jasper Magick wrote: > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:55:26 +0100, David Dorward wrote: > >Speaking as a user - I don't. >> I'll also point out that the CSS validator lets you turn warnings >> off if you don't like them. > Judging by the amount of warnings the W3.org website has, no wonder > you don't hate them. I fail to see how http://w3.org/ triggering warnings in the validator has anything to do with my liking them or otherwise. > And it is not just that *I* can turn the warnings off if I choose, > if it was just a simple matter of that then it wouldn't be a > problem. Since some people find the warnings useful, removing the feature (even if you discount that can be controled by user preferences) would be a bad thing. > It is that *other people* whom choose to check the validation of my > site will see the warnings and think I'm a bad web designer. I think that removing functionality from a tool because some users of that tool don't understand it is a very poor solution to the problem. > There is NO reason at all why Transparent Backrounds should be > warned. I disagree. It can be useful to be reminded about transparency in a stylesheet. I'm not sure its useful enough to justify being in a "Normal Report", but it should certainly be kept in for "All". (I'll also point out, to put my comments into context, that despite the subject line, the message I responded to was discussing "warnings", not that specific warning). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2005 13:53:42 UTC