- From: Paul McKeown (Tiscali) <ppjmckeown@tiscali.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:37:03 +0100
- To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- CC: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>, "www-validator-css@w3.org" <www-validator-css@w3.org>
Sorry Philip, Just that this dragging on with this simple issue is getting my goat. Badly. Sorry for my overheated response. Regards, Paul. Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote: > Dear Paul -- > > I apologise if you felt there was any "sharp tone" > in my message; on my part, there was no such > intention, and my sole aim was to /help/ you to > achieve your goal (which I regard as an eminently > sensible one) rather than to hinder you in any way. > > Philip TAYLOR > -------- > Paul McKeown (Tiscali) wrote: > > Philip, > > > > There was no agreement that the warning was in any way correct in CSS > > 2.1; the behaviour of the validator simply defies the specification. > > > > My observations regarding behaviour of browsers was simply a > response to > > previous bleather by other correspondents - please review the thread. > > > > Personally all I care about is the correct behaviour of the validator - > > and your sharp toned response to my request is unhelpful, in my view. > > > > It should be possible, in my opinion, to toggle off an informational > > message, if any are generated. > > > > > > Regards. >
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 11:39:03 UTC