W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-css@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Vendor-specific extensions: warnings, not errors

From: Jens O. Meiert <jens@meiert.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 09:24:53 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTin__LY_dmLaefd89cA1fCQSxMBJLWoBJyBAv9j2@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Cc: www-validator-css@w3.org
> They are still errors, and authors are still advised not to use them.

Where does the spec say that vendor-specific extensions should result
in errors on validation? (The parsing error section [1] doesn’t,
correct me if I’m wrong.)

How is the “should” in “[a]uthors should avoid vendor-specific
extensions” to be understood if not as an RFC 2119 “should” [2,3], and
how does this “should” then require errors on validation?

And even if that is all fine, what is the precise benefit of this approach?

Thank you,

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#parsing-errors
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/conform.html#defs
[3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

Jens O. Meiert
Received on Saturday, 26 June 2010 16:43:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:01:08 UTC