- From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:34:44 +0100
- To: "Paul McKeown (Tiscali)" <ppjmckeown@tiscali.co.uk>
- CC: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>, "www-validator-css@w3.org" <www-validator-css@w3.org>
Paul McKeown (Tiscali) wrote: > I would disagree that there was an agreement to generate an > informational message. There was a suggestion from one party - that's all. I respectfully disagree. I made the suggestion (that the message be an informational one) and Douglas Perreault confirmed that he agreed with the suggestion : > In any case, what I was really looking for was an "informational" message as > Phillip was describing. Personally I don't consider a warning the same as an > error. My opinion, but I see no reason why, for example, I have to describe > a background color and a color if the background color is already defined > elsewhere. It's just extra bandwidth wasted. I know it's not good form, but > most of the pages I create are simple and we're interested in small size, > rather than verbose explicit declarations. So when I see that warning, I > ignore it unless it's convenient to address it directly. > > However, I do see your point. Since CSS 2.1 does not require explicit > widths, the "warning" is incorrect. But an informational message would be > still be nice in my opinion. Philip TAYLOR
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 11:35:30 UTC