- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:59:29 +0300
- To: <www-validator-css@w3.org>
Andreas Prilop wrote: > but "(in)valid" is still "(un)gültig" in German. I am in no position to take a position on German usage of words, but I think this little discussion demonstrates well some of the problems of "Valid CSS" icons. The very word "valid" is obscure even in English - sometimes it means something that meets very specific criteria (valid ticket, valid XML document), but probably more often, it means just "good", "nice", "OK". For example, what constitutes a valid argument? Whatever someone decides to accept, for unspecified reasons. Although the word "valid" is justified in SGML and XML context, it tends to cause just confusion even there, and much more so in the CSS context. What the "CSS Validator" means by calling a style sheet valid is that the style sheet does not contain any formal error to the extent that the "CSS Validator" can verify things. It says nothing about suitability to any particular purpose, or about any quality matters, beyond the simple (though important as such) point of avoiding syntax errors. Of course, we can avoid much of the mess by staying away from "Valid CSS" icons. I just found an interesting rant on them: http://meiert.com/en/blog/20070309/valid-css-and-similar-claims-are-unprofessional/ Well, one might make the valid (?) counterargument that many, if not most, web pages use style sheets that contain syntax errors, so being valid _is_ something positive as compared with the general level. And the "CSS Validator" could be a useful tool there. But claiming that your CSS is valid is really pointless. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Saturday, 18 July 2009 14:00:45 UTC