- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 05:58:44 +0000
- To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=948
Summary: Cannot parse some CSS comments when CSS file included in
HTML
Product: CSSValidator
Version: CSS Validator
Platform: Other
URL: http://www.zap.org.au/~john/web/sinorcaish/index.html
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: XHTML1.0
AssignedTo: ot@w3.org
ReportedBy: J.Zaitseff@zap.org.au
QAContact: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
When I tried to validate the CSS of a sample page of mine, the validator
complained that it could not parse certain items in the external print-only CSS
file, even though that CSS file validated correctly by itself.
In particular, if you try to validate
http://www.zap.org.au/~john/web/sinorcaish/index.html, you will find that it
complains about
http://www.zap.org.au/~john/web/sinorcaish/sinorcaish-print.css. The complaint
is:
Line: 0
Parse Error - : none !important; } .notprinted
Line: 0
Parse Error - : 0 0 0.5em 0; } #main .highlight
After much puzzling over this problem, I found that REMOVING the comments from
inside the definitions made the Parse Error go away. In other words, the
following CSS (in that sinorcaish-print.css file) did not validate:
.hidden { /* Used for content that should be displayed */
/* by non-stylesheet-aware browsers */
display: none !important;
}
.notprinted { /* Used for content that should not be */
/* printed to paper */
display: none !important;
}
(and similarly for "#main h1" followed by "#main .highlight"), but the
following version (ie, with comments removed) DID validate:
.hidden {
display: none !important;
}
.notprinted {
display: none !important;
}
Not all such comments cause problems! Removing the comments around "#main
h1" / "#main .highlight" suddenly caused other definitions to be incorrectly
parsed. In other words, I cannot see the pattern behind it! I can only
suggest that comments that immediately follow a "{" are not handled correctly.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 05:58:45 UTC