- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 22:37:40 +0300
- To: <www-validator-css@w3.org>
Jules Ernst wrote: > The CSS 3 validator however presents an unexpected error. Since "CSS 3" is just a collection of incomplete sketchy drafts, some of them really sketchy, the idea of a "CSS 3 validator" is more or less absurd. How can you check conformance to something that does not exist as a stable specification? > The CSS 3 manual says you can use: > Name: word-wrap > Value: normal | break-word > see: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-text/#word-wrap It's not a manual. It's not a specification either. It's a "working draft" dated over a year ago, and it says: "This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress." > What is wrong, the validator or the manual? What's wrong is the very idea of a "validator" for something that has not been defined even informally. The "manual" is no more normative than the "validator", so you can say they are equally right, or equally wrong, or you may pick your favorite. In practice, this was probably an oversight in trying to collect the properties defined in different drafts into the collection recognized by the "validator". Or maybe someone just didn't like word-wrap. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 19:38:28 UTC