On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Philip TAYLOR <p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Tom Livingston wrote: > > > My point exactly. It's throwing an error, but for something that the > validator just doesn't understand and flags but is considered > > by most to be "OK" to have in the styles. > > > > Unless you are in the camp of "no vendor prefixes ever" and the like... > > No,I am in the camp of "Either it is valid, or it is not". > Vendor-prefixes are non-standard, and a page that uses them > is invalid : it is not that "the validator does not understand > them", it is that they are not defined in the specification > to which the validator putatively refers when validating the > page. This has nothing to do with what might or might not become > standard (and therefore correct) one day : it is solely about > what is standard (and therefore correct) today. > > Philip Taylor > I am not arguing your point, but merely try to say (poorly) that the errors the validator is flagging may not break the page. -- Tom Livingston | Senior Interactive Developer | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
