- From: Jens O. Meiert <jens@meiert.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 09:24:53 -0700
- 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, Jens. [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 http://meiert.com/en/
Received on Saturday, 26 June 2010 16:43:36 UTC