- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:10:30 +0900
- To: Douglas Perreault <doug@perreault.us>
- Cc: "'Jan Eliasen'" <jan@eliasen.dk>, <www-validator-css@w3.org>
Hi all, Thanks for your messages on this issue. I can tell the discussion got a little heated, but in the end I think good information was exchanged and some people got help on setting their charset ;). Now onto the actual issue with the validator... On Jun 27, 2007, at 23:56 , Douglas Perreault wrote: > What remains a problem is the CSS validator. > [...] > Run that through the validator and you will get a parse error. > > Take that same CSS file, but re-arrange it, and I get a "valid" CSS > file, > though the "p" tag still shows the square boxes from the BOM. See > http://dev.inbliss.info/UTF1.css as an example. > > The only difference between those two files is that an @media section > doesn't start off the CSS file that validates. You're right Douglas, regardless of whether or not a BOM is a good or bad thing, false negatives in the validator because of a BOM is a bug. I've just entered a bug report on this, and a couple of test cases, thanks to all the good info I could gather from your message and others in this thread: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4828 http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/autotest/testsuite/bugs/4828- bom_atmedia.css http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/autotest/testsuite/bugs/4828- bom_notatmedia.css We'll see how fast it can be fixed. In the meantime, at least the bug is recorded and testable. Thank you. -- olivier
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 01:10:40 UTC