[css-d] CSS Validation

[Vicki Stebbins]

Hi all,

I've just gone to http://jigsaw.w3.org to validate the CSS for the latest 
site I'm doing and I got a heap of warnings, so I then went to previous 
domains that hadn't had the warnings to find they now do as well.


Mainly it's to do with the background-color: which I have as part of 
background: and it always validated okay.


Can someone tell me have they changed the validator?

If so what do I do about all the work that I've done to have it without 
warnings, without laboriously going through each style sheet that the job 
is now finished?


Thanks

Vicki

"I'd put my money on the Sun and solar energy. What a source of power!
I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle
that."
-Thomas Edison




__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] CSS validation

[Bob Meetin]

I'm trying to get a slideshow (uses microsoft fade) to pass CSS 
validation. The validator says:

* Line: 190

  attempt to find a semi-colon before the property name. add it

* Line: 190

  Property progid doesn't exist : DXImageTransform


The code:





The transition only works in IE; I got firefox to pass CSS by setting up an IF 
IE statement, 
but this not not help it pass for IE.

Help?  -Bob


__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation

[David Laakso]

Vicki Stebbins wrote:



Can someone tell me have they changed the validator?
Vicki


Vicki,
There have been numerous posts and replies regarding the questions 
you've asked over the past 14days. Presumptuous of me, I know, but check 
this months archives.

~dL

--
David Laakso
http://www.dlaakso.com

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation

[David Laakso]

Vicki Stebbins wrote:



At 11:37 AM 25/10/2005, David Laakso wrote:


Vicki Stebbins wrote:



Can someone tell me have they changed the validator?
Vicki


Vicki,
There have been numerous posts and replies regarding the questions 
you've asked over the past 14days. Presumptuous of me, I know, but 
check this months archives.

~dL

--
David Laakso
http://www.dlaakso.com



Hi David,

As always thanks. I have looked through the last 14 days to no avail 
(of course it may be been a different subject than CSS or 
Validation/Validator), I did find a little by sorting by subject back 
on 17 July 2005.


It still doesn't explain why, and if the validation is to stay like this.

The answer to put a background color into everything doesn't quite 
work for me, when I get the error:

'You have no background-color with your color : p '

To put a background-color: then covers the background image from the 
div below, if there's a better way I'm happy to change this site as 
it's only just begun.


Does anyone know an answer to why with the validator?

Regards

Vicki


October Archive: Query: Validation: And many more on same page:

~d







--
David Laakso
http://www.dlaakso.com

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation

[Vicki Stebbins]

At 11:37 AM 25/10/2005, David Laakso wrote:

Vicki Stebbins wrote:



Can someone tell me have they changed the validator?
Vicki

Vicki,
There have been numerous posts and replies regarding the questions you've 
asked over the past 14days. Presumptuous of me, I know, but check this 
months archives.

~dL

--
David Laakso
http://www.dlaakso.com


Hi David,

As always thanks. I have looked through the last 14 days to no avail (of 
course it may be been a different subject than CSS or 
Validation/Validator), I did find a little by sorting by subject back on 17 
July 2005.


It still doesn't explain why, and if the validation is to stay like this.

The answer to put a background color into everything doesn't quite work for 
me, when I get the error:

'You have no background-color with your color : p '

To put a background-color: then covers the background image from the div 
below, if there's a better way I'm happy to change this site as it's only 
just begun.


Does anyone know an answer to why with the validator?

Regards

Vicki 


__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation

[Christian Montoya]

> The answer to put a background color into everything doesn't quite work for
> me, when I get the error:
> 'You have no background-color with your color : p '
>

Vicki, that's not an error, it's a warning. And warnings do not mean
that your page doesn't validate.

To be more specific, that particular warning is a bug. The validator
can't actually see that your page has the correct colors. It just sees
that a property is not defined. But if you know that your pages look
correct, even with images disabled, then you've heeded the warning,
and there's no need to worry.

--
C Montoya - I hate dash dash
rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation

[Vicki Stebbins]

Many thanks Christian,

It's certainly off-putting when the pages showed without the warnings and 
then suddenly, boom!


David sent a link to a previous post which I hadn't received explaining the 
warnings.


Now I've gone through them and yes you are quite right, about the warnings 
and my CSS is fine.


Thank you again, it's certainly good to have something confirmed.

Regards
8-)
Vicki


At 03:15 PM 25/10/2005, you wrote:

> The answer to put a background color into everything doesn't quite work for
> me, when I get the error:
> 'You have no background-color with your color : p '
>

Vicki, that's not an error, it's a warning. And warnings do not mean
that your page doesn't validate.

To be more specific, that particular warning is a bug. The validator
can't actually see that your page has the correct colors. It just sees
that a property is not defined. But if you know that your pages look
correct, even with images disabled, then you've heeded the warning,
and there's no need to worry.

--
C Montoya - I hate dash dash
rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com


__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation

[Nick Fitzsimons]

> The answer to put a background color into everything doesn't quite work
> for
> me, when I get the error:
> 'You have no background-color with your color : p '

Note that it isn't an error: it's just a warning.

Try introducing some non-valid CSS into a stylesheet, then validate it:
the invalid bit will appear as an error (red heading), and then the
multitude of warnings (blue heading) will be below it. As long as you
don't have any errors, you're valid.

Frankly, it's a pretty useless warning in most cases. It would be better
to describe it as a hint: "Make sure you're really doing what you wanted
to do, and if you are, ignore this."

HTH,

Nick.
-- 
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Nick Fitzsimons wrote:
Frankly, it's a pretty useless warning in most cases. It would be 
better to describe it as a hint: "Make sure you're really doing what 
you wanted to do, and if you are, ignore this."


IMO: the same can be said about all [error] and [warning] messages. If
you know what you're doing, then the whole validation-issue comes down
to whether or not you want a [valid-badge] from W3C.

Validation can assist us by pointing out weak points, typos and errors
in our coding. 'Valid' or 'not-valid' has little or nothing to do with
'working CSS', and the quality of our code is not depending on what the
validator tells us.

To give a clear example: W3C are accepting the use of browser-specific,
not normative, CSS-properties, and have even documented how to name and
use such CSS-properties.
W3C is also defining how browsers should use and/or ignore certain
"things". Some of these are related to older CSS-parts and some are
'possible' future parts. They are exceptions, and documented as such on
the W3C site.

It doesn't make them valid, so the validator may protest wildly.
However, there's no other way to allow for 'real world' CSS and
pre-testing in browsers, and coders should learn to recognize these
[errors] and [warnings] for what they are, just as W3C does.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation

[Vicki Stebbins]

At 10:38 PM 25/10/2005, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:

Nick Fitzsimons wrote:
Frankly, it's a pretty useless warning in most cases. It would be better 
to describe it as a hint: "Make sure you're really doing what you wanted 
to do, and if you are, ignore this."


IMO: the same can be said about all [error] and [warning] messages. If
you know what you're doing, then the whole validation-issue comes down
to whether or not you want a [valid-badge] from W3C.

Validation can assist us by pointing out weak points, typos and errors
in our coding. 'Valid' or 'not-valid' has little or nothing to do with
'working CSS', and the quality of our code is not depending on what the
validator tells us.

To give a clear example: W3C are accepting the use of browser-specific,
not normative, CSS-properties, and have even documented how to name and
use such CSS-properties.
W3C is also defining how browsers should use and/or ignore certain
"things". Some of these are related to older CSS-parts and some are
'possible' future parts. They are exceptions, and documented as such on
the W3C site.

It doesn't make them valid, so the validator may protest wildly.
However, there's no other way to allow for 'real world' CSS and
pre-testing in browsers, and coders should learn to recognize these
[errors] and [warnings] for what they are, just as W3C does.

regards
Georg


Hi Georg,

I hear you with:
IMO: the same can be said about all [error] and [warning] messages. If
you know what you're doing, then the whole validation-issue comes down
to whether or not you want a [valid-badge] from W3C.

In my experience some clients do want the 'valid badge'. I have had a 
client who went to bobby some years ago and got warnings and thought their 
website was full of errors and wouldn't work (albeit they could see it did 
work).


Whilst I agree, that most of the time the validation service is used as a 
development tool, those of us with client's who find these tools see a 
warning as a problem with their site that they just paid good money to have 
developed.


Explaining that everything is okay works but calling it a 'hint' is a way 
that works for me, rather than 'warning' which is very confusing.


IMO It's difficult enough to get things to work properly on as many 
browsers and platforms as possible within the time-frame to complete a job, 
without the added confusion of 'warnings'.


For me, I'll now include in my written estimate of a job, a clause which 
says something about 'warnings' in validation services just to cover all 
avenues.


Once again many thanks to Nick, Christian, David and yourself for making 
this s much clearer for me.


Regards
8-)
Vicki

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Vicki Stebbins wrote:
For me, I'll now include in my written estimate of a job, a clause 
which says something about 'warnings' in validation services just to 
cover all avenues.


If you come up with a good text then let me know - off list, I guess.
Clients are often worse than the validator about validation (if they
have any idea about it), so I certainly could use a written statement to
hold them back... :-)

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation

[Vicki Stebbins]

At 07:56 PM 26/10/2005, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:

Vicki Stebbins wrote:
For me, I'll now include in my written estimate of a job, a clause which 
says something about 'warnings' in validation services just to cover all 
avenues.


If you come up with a good text then let me know - off list, I guess.
Clients are often worse than the validator about validation (if they
have any idea about it), so I certainly could use a written statement to
hold them back... :-)

regards
Georg


Hi Georg,

You're not the only one to ask, I normally try to keep this sort of 
statement simple, not too much jargon as it confuses people. (Haven't we 
all had the client that used lots of jargon without a clue what they were 
talking about!)


When I have something put together I'll send through off list to you and 
anyone else interested, and if anyone else has something already I'm sure 
I'd like a look at their's also... it's certainly good to pool resources 
with this sort of thing.


Regards
8-)
Vicki







__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] css validation error

[Sr. Flo Fluse]

Hello all,

I'm at validating the css stylesheet and there are two strange error 
messages which i can't get rid of.


1)the first one is:
/Parse Error - body, div, dl, dt, dd, ul, ol, li, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, 
h6, pre, form, fieldset, input, p, blockquote, th, td { margin:0; 
padding:0; }

/This line is in the very beginning of the document for normalization 
purposes.
I rewrote the line and checked it in a new css stylesheet with the 
validator and it validated fine. But when i copied it into the sites' 
stylesheet it provoked an error again.
What am i doing wrong?


2)the second one is:
/div#site-info p a  Lexical error at line 1121, column 0. 
Encountered:  after : ""/

Here again i can't find the error. the code is written well, as i see it.
It's this line:
*div#site-info p a { text-decoration: none; } *

i moved the line into another section of the stylesheet and the "error 
at line 1121" changed with it ("error at line 1562"), so i guess it 
wasn't an element before  or after the line which caused the  error 
message.
What am i missing?


My sites' link is:
http://www.dcc-artivisme.net/wordpress_dcc/?langswitch_lang=en

the direct link to the css file is:
http://www.dcc-artivisme.net/wordpress_dcc/wp-content/themes/dcc/style.css


Thanks very much for the help
flo

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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/

[css-d] CSS validation question

[Peggy Coats]

When I'm validating my CSS, I keep getting warnings such as listed below
using the W3C validation service:


   - Line : 5 (Level : 1) You have no color with your background-color :
   body
   - Line : 11 (Level : 1) You have no color with your background-color :
   #content
   - Line : 29 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
   h2
   - Line : 36 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
   #text
   - Line : 55 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
   #nav

In each of these instances I DO have the color attritubes identified with a
hex code, and the respective element validates later in the results.  I'm
confused!  Am I missing something here?

Thanks,

Peg
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] CSS validation question

[Magenta Placenta]

When validating css at http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/, do you want to 
include the web site URL (like you'd pull up in a browser) or the URL for 
the css stylesheet itself?  For example:

http://www.matthickerson.com/recent/barley
Returns a bunch of color errors, which don't make a lot of sense to me.

http://www.matthickerson.com/recent/barley/stylesheet.css
Validates.


__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS validation

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* Bob Meetin wrote:
>I'm trying to get a slideshow (uses microsoft fade) to pass CSS 
>validation.

That's not possible, if you use the Microsoft 'filter' property,
your style sheet is not valid per any CSS specification.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] CSS Validation error

[Mike NA]

Hello

I am getting this error message when I try to vadidate my CSS...

Lexical error at line 1, column 3. Encountered: "D" (68), after : "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd";>
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>


I have tried changing document types as suggested this web address,

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/

If anyone could help I would appreciate it.

Michael
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] CSS Validation Error ?

[Crest Christopher]

Hi, I need help with a CSS error
Value Error : margin attempt to find a semi-colon before the property 
name. add it


The error is a closed semi-colon for a MQ  ?
__
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/

[css-d] css validation error

[Mike Manley]

I need a little help understanding this error.

All css validates except this part.
"css error = Unknown pseudo-element or pseudo-class :required"


I have this html in a table for a contact form and all html validates.
required="required" />


In the css I have this
input:required, textarea:required{add styles}

From all the information I have been able to find (which is mostly a 
couple of years old) what I have in the css is the correct way of doing 
this.  So either my information is wrong or I have misunderstood it.


TIA
Mike

__
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/

[css-d] css validation help

[Vincent Pollard]

Hi everybody,

So my css and xhtml almost validate, except for two things:

 

1)  The third line here validates in CSS3 but not in CSS2.1 - 

a) does that matter? 

b) the overflow-y is the only way I've found to stop the page jumping
around in IE8. Maybe somebody else has a better solution?

 

html { 

  /* forces scrollbar visible to prevent position jumping in Firefox
*/

height: 100%; 

margin-bottom: 1px;

  overflow-y: scroll /* forces scrollbar visible to prevent position
jumping in IE8 */

}

 

My style rules for IE6 using the underscore hack, e.g.: 

 

..threeColLeft {

  _display: inline;

}

 

I didn't really want to create a separate stylesheet for IE6 but maybe I
should if I want validation. What would you do?

 

Any help,  advice, comments or suggestions - and please no abuse about
using hacks in the first place - would be gratefully received.

 

P.S. what really are the advantages of being compliant? I hear it's
better for SEO and I like the idea, just from a professional pride POV
but why be compliant. Do a couple of underscore hacks pose a problem?

 

Vincent Pollard | UI Developer | Version 5.1 Inc. | T. (416) 516-4509
x252 | F. (416) 516-6186 |  vinc...@version51.com
 

 

__
css-discuss [cs...@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/

[css-d] CSS validation warnings question

[Terri Chicko]

It says my CSS validates but I have 22 warnings all similar. Sorry, I  
know these are dumb... but I don't understand.

Warning
"Same colors for color and background-color in two contexts #headline  
and h1"
Thanks
Terri


Terri Chicko
Flirty Women's Fashions
www.hotniniz.com



__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] css validation error

[Rob Emenecker]

> I'm at validating the css stylesheet and there are two strange 
> error messages which i can't get rid of.

What are you using to edit your CSS file? The file appears to have
non-printing characters that do not appear to be standard CR, LF, or CR/LF
line endings.

What if you copy/paste your CSS into a new blank text document using NotePad
or TextPad, and then post it?

...Rob

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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/

Re: [css-d] css validation error

[David Laakso]

Sr. Flo Fluse wrote:
> I'm at validating the css stylesheet and there are two strange error 
> messages which i can't get rid of.
>
>
> flo
>
>   

 Wow! Uncompressing the file before posting to the list would be a nice 
touch on your part...

I think if you delete the entire comment preceding the body declaration, 
and close the color comment (the last ruleset at the very bottom of the 
file), you'll be good to go.

Providing this link is not totally mangled in transmission, you'll find 
your valid (uncommented) CSS here:



Best,
~dL

-- 
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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/

Re: [css-d] css validation error

[Ingo Chao]

The html validator indicates a BOM in addition


-- 
http://www.satzansatz.de/css.html
http://www.dolphinsback.com
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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/

[css-d] CSS validation tool question

[Terri Chicko]

Hi All

I can't believe this but I think I most of the bugs, glitches and  
other problems are worked out on this site! Thank you all for helping.

However when I went to validate the CSS it's OK but I don't  
understand these warnings.
What am I doing or not doing?

Warnings

URI : http://www.jungle-tamer.com/

Line : 12 (Level : 1) You have no color with your background-color :  
#strip
Line : 13 (Level : 1) You have no color with your background-color :  
#content
Line : 14 (Level : 1) You have no color with your background-color :  
#pacific-nw
Line : 15 (Level : 1) You have no color with your background-color :  
#body
Line : 17 (Level : 1) You have no color with your background-color :  
#footer
Line : 24 (Level : 1) Same colors for color and background-color in  
two contexts a:visited and h1
Line : 24 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color : h1
etc.

Thanks
Terri

Terri Chicko
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Illustration, Graphics and Web Design
www.chickoart.com
www.salishwinds.com
www.the-point-casino.com



__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS validation question

[Portman]

Hi Peggy,

Can you send a link to the page?

Riva

Peggy Coats wrote:
> When I'm validating my CSS, I keep getting warnings such as listed below
> using the W3C validation service:
>
>
>- Line : 5 (Level : 1) You have no color with your background-color :
>body
>- Line : 11 (Level : 1) You have no color with your background-color :
>#content
>- Line : 29 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
>h2
>- Line : 36 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
>#text
>- Line : 55 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
>#nav
>
> In each of these instances I DO have the color attritubes identified with a
> hex code, and the respective element validates later in the results.  I'm
> confused!  Am I missing something here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peg
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS validation question

[francky]

Peggy Coats wrote:

>When I'm validating my CSS, I keep getting warnings such as listed below
>using the W3C validation service:
>
>   - Line : 5 (Level : 1) You have no color with your background-color :
>   body
>   - Line : 11 (Level : 1) You have no color with your background-color :
>   #content
>   - Line : 29 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
>   h2
>   - Line : 36 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
>   #text
>   - Line : 55 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
>   #nav
>
>In each of these instances I DO have the color attritubes identified with a
>hex code, and the respective element validates later in the results.  I'm
>confused!  Am I missing something here?
>  
>
Hi Peggy,
I think I know what is happening. The css-validator loves to see pairs 
of colors and background colors. So if you give a background color in 
the body (line 5), and the text color in a #text container (line 36), it 
is giving 2 warnings. For the body that the text on body level has no 
color defined, for the #text that the background on #text level has no 
background color! The ratio of this is in short: be aware that the 
contrast between the letter colors and the background is enough for 
accessibility at each level. It can happen when you have no good pairs, 
that changing the color of a background can make the text invisible in a 
page (or dynamically changed containers) far away from the stylesheet. 
Also personal browser preferences of a visitor can make things invisible 
or hard to read, if txt and bg are not in pairs.
But the validator warnings are not completely waterproof:

* There can be a warning while the contrast is ok. - Probably in
  your case. You can give each bg-color a concrete txt-color (and
  v.v.), the easy way I often do it, is to add {color: inherit;} or
  {background: inherit;} > I'm quick finished, the validator is happy.
* There can be no warning, while the contrast is very bad. - For
  instance a dark grey letter on a black background. And even when
  there is only 1 of 256 point difference on the hue scale, the
  validator sees "aha, different, no warning needed". As I am not an
  eagle, in this case I can see only a background without any text...

So an optical check is always needed too (try on different monitors, the 
differences can be enornous!).

Illustration: greyscale with contrast values 
.

Greetings,
francky


__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS validation question

[Ingo Chao]

francky wrote:
> The css-validator loves to see pairs 
> of colors and background colors. ... The ratio of this is in short: be aware 
> that the
> contrast between the letter colors and the background is enough for 
> accessibility at each level. 


Jukka "Yucca" Korpela wrote an excellent expertise

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator-css/2006Feb/0039.html

why this is not only an accessibility question.

"Actually the wording _should_ be stronger ..."

The proposed text is a good read, and it ends with

"Technically, this message is a warning, not an error message, since 
taking the risk [e.g. black text on black background - I.C.] does not 
violate any requirement in CSS specifications."


But I did not take the time to revise my styles yet.
Inconsequently me :(

Ingo

-- 
http://www.satzansatz.de/css.html
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS validation question

[francky]

Ingo Chao wrote:

>francky wrote:
>  
>
>>The css-validator loves to see pairs 
>>of colors and background colors. ... The ratio of this is in short: be aware 
>>that the
>>contrast between the letter colors and the background is enough for 
>>accessibility at each level. 
>>
>>
>Jukka "Yucca" Korpela wrote an excellent expertise
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator-css/2006Feb/0039.html
>
>why this is not only an accessibility question. [...]
>  
>
True; for safety, I added "in short" ;-) 
Should have said: "for usability and accessibility". - Good article!

Greetings,
francky
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS validation question

[Jan Brasna]

> why this is not only an accessibility question.

It's more a reminder than anything else. The "validator" (a "syntax 
checker" would be better?) has no idea about you cascade and CSS 
inheritance in the particular document so it advises you to add more 
maybe even duplicate values to just satisfy its weird guesswork.

-- 
Jan Brasna :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com | www.wdnews.net
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS validation question

[Aaron Scott Hildebrandt]

> When validating css at http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/, do you want to
> include the web site URL (like you'd pull up in a browser) or the URL for
> the css stylesheet itself?

Either or will work. I checked both of them and both give you the same
colour warnings, which can be safely ignored (and isn't considered
essential for validation -- you'd kill yourself if you tried to clean
up every warning every time when it comes to colours).

Validating the page itself (and not the CSS file) comes up with 1
error, which I assume is on the page itself and not the CSS file.

The difference between the two is that validating the CSS file will
validate that file and only that file, while validating the page
itself will validate the CSS file as well as any CSS styles you may
have used on the page.
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation error

[Sasha Gerrand]

On 03/01/07, Mike NA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello
>
> I am getting this error message when I try to vadidate my CSS...
>
> Lexical error at line 1, column 3. Encountered: "D" (68), after : "
> The actual code is
>
>
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd";>
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
>
>
> I have tried changing document types as suggested this web address,
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
>
> If anyone could help I would appreciate it.

Do you have a public URI for the markup that is returning this error?
-- 
Cheers,
Sasha
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation error

[~davidLaakso]

Mike NA wrote:
> Hello
>
> I am getting this error message when I try to vadidate my CSS...
>
> Lexical error at line 1, column 3. Encountered: "D" (68), after : "
> The actual code is
>
>
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd";>
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
> Michael
I believe it should read (assuming this does not get mangled in mail):
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd";>
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">

you've got:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd";>
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>


Best,
~dL

-- 
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation error

[~davidLaakso]

~davidLaakso wrote:
> Mike NA wrote:
>   
>> I am getting this error message when I try to vadidate my CSS...
>>
>> Lexical error at line 1, column 3. Encountered: "D" (68), after : "> 
>
>   
Whoops. Or is it, simply:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd";>
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">

Regards,
~dL

-- 
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation error

[Matt Ryan]

On 1/2/07, Mike NA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lexical error at line 1, column 3. Encountered: "D" (68), after : "http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation Error ?

[Philip Taylor]

URL ?

Crest Christopher wrote:


Hi, I need help with a CSS error

__
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/

Re: [css-d] css validation error

[Ryan Reese]

The validator basically doesn't know that it's valid CSS. It's not updated.
Ignore the error :).

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Mike Manley  wrote:

> I need a little help understanding this error.
>
> All css validates except this part.
> "css error = Unknown pseudo-element or pseudo-class :required"
>
>
> I have this html in a table for a contact form and all html validates.
>  required="required" />
>
> In the css I have this
> input:required, textarea:required{add styles}
>
> From all the information I have been able to find (which is mostly a
> couple of years old) what I have in the css is the correct way of doing
> this.  So either my information is wrong or I have misunderstood it.
>
> TIA
> Mike
>
> __
> 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/
>



-- 
Ryan Reese
__
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/

Re: [css-d] css validation error

[Philip Taylor]

Ryan Reese wrote:

> The validator basically doesn't know that it's valid CSS. It's not 
> updated.  Ignore the error :).

It might be helpful, Ryan, if you could provide a link to the
relevant part of the W3C CSS specification(s); that way, both the
original poster and other members of the list can better inform
themselves about this and other related aspects of CSS.

Philip Taylor
__
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/

Re: [css-d] css validation error

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

> Le 1 juil. 2015 à 02:59, Mike Manley  a écrit :
> 
> All css validates except this part.
> "css error = Unknown pseudo-element or pseudo-class :required"
> …
> 
> In the css I have this
> input:required, textarea:required{add styles}
> 
> From all the information I have been able to find (which is mostly a couple 
> of years old) what I have in the css is the correct way of doing this.  So 
> either my information is wrong or I have misunderstood it.

> Le 1 juil. 2015 à 03:00, Ryan Reese  a écrit :
> 
> The validator basically doesn't know that it's valid CSS. It's not updated.
> Ignore the error :).

The :required pseudo-class was once part of CSS3-UI, but has been moved to 
CSS-Selectors 4 (somewhere during the 2014 timespan. 

Older version of CSS3-UI:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-css3-ui-20120117/#pseudo-required-value
(Note the date at the top of the document)
Current Selectors 4 draft
https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors/#required-pseudo

As Ryan says, the validator needs some love.

Philippe
--
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.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/

Re: [css-d] css validation help

[Erik Vorhes]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Vincent Pollard wrote:
>
> 1)      The third line here validates in CSS3 but not in CSS2.1 -
>
> a) does that matter?
>

Not really, since you're doing it intentionally, and you'd run into
that issue with anything that's valid in CSS3 but not in CSS2.1.

>
> I didn't really want to create a separate stylesheet for IE6 but maybe I
> should if I want validation. What would you do?
>

I usually end up making IE-version specific files & wrap them in
conditional comments. That way you don't need to rely on a hack to get
see you through. (Though I have to admit that I'll throw hacks in my
main CSS files during development, if I can, to keep things grouped
together for easier revision.)

> P.S. what really are the advantages of being compliant? I hear it's
> better for SEO and I like the idea, just from a professional pride POV
> but why be compliant. Do a couple of underscore hacks pose a problem?

Well-formed HTML can play a significant role in how your pages are
parsed & indexed by search engines (as well as some assistive
technologies), but CSS validation doesn't play a role in that way.
Validating your CSS helps to preempt real mistakes, etc. The validator
has saved me from a forgotten semicolon several more times than I'd
like to admit.


Erik
__
css-discuss [cs...@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/

Re: [css-d] css validation help

[Alan Gresley]

Vincent Pollard wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> So my css and xhtml almost validate, except for two things:
> 
>  
> 
> 1)  The third line here validates in CSS3 but not in CSS2.1 - 
> 
> a) does that matter? 

Erik Vorhes has already stated that it doesn't matter.


> b) the overflow-y is the only way I've found to stop the page jumping
> around in IE8. Maybe somebody else has a better solution?
> 
> html { 
> 
>   /* forces scrollbar visible to prevent position jumping in Firefox
> */
> 
> height: 100%; 
> 
> margin-bottom: 1px;
> 
>   overflow-y: scroll /* forces scrollbar visible to prevent position
> jumping in IE8 */
> 
> }


We would need to see a test case here. It may be IE8 following CSS2.1 to 
  the letter or handling invalid XHTML differently. Get your XHTML valid.


> My style rules for IE6 using the underscore hack, e.g.: 
> 
> ..threeColLeft {
> 
>   _display: inline;
> }
> 
> I didn't really want to create a separate stylesheet for IE6 but maybe I
> should if I want validation. What would you do?


Replace the above with,


* html .threeColLeft {
   display: inline;
}


This is valid but should never select anything but IE6 or lower have an 
element outside the . Chris Wilson of MS was the one who coded it 
in trident (IE rendering engine) in the 1990s.


> Any help,  advice, comments or suggestions - and please no abuse about
> using hacks in the first place - would be gratefully received.


Hack the older browsers by CSS that no browser should use. The above 
works in IE6. This one works in IE7.

*+html .threeColLeft {
   display: inline;
}


This bug or whatever is not present in IE8.

Never use unsupported selectors to target specific browsers. This one I 
used with Safari 3 to target it.

*:not(:root)~html #wrapper2+div[id*=""]:not(:first-child)>*


Now Safari 4 does not honor empty attribute substring selectors like 
it's cousin Firefox. All such hacks will eventually fail as browsers 
support of CSS improves or if other implementors change course.

The best way is to only hack IE7 or lower since all modern browsers 
(including IE8) should render a page the same way. I would not recommend 
hacking your HTML with IE Conditional comments since they are not in one 
location and thus not easily removed.


> P.S. what really are the advantages of being compliant? I hear it's
> better for SEO and I like the idea, just from a professional pride POV
> but why be compliant. Do a couple of underscore hacks pose a problem?


This has no affect with SEO (which is off-topic here). The underscore 
hack just invalidates the CSS.


-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
__
css-discuss [cs...@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/

Re: [css-d] css validation help

[Erik Vorhes]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Alan Gresley wrote:
>
> The best way is to only hack IE7 or lower since all modern browsers
> (including IE8) should render a page the same way. I would not recommend
> hacking your HTML with IE Conditional comments since they are not in one
> location and thus not easily removed.
>

Alan,

Decentralization of CSS may sometimes pose an issue, but using
conditional comments for IE isn't actually a hack. It's using a
proprietary Microsoft extension; every other browser simply treats
conditional comments as regular comments. The additional benefit of
conditional comments is that you can use other proprietary Microsoft
CSS extensions (e.g., "zoom" and various JScript expressions) within
them without causing your code to invalidate.

I'd actually argue that if your conditional IE 6-7 CSS files are so
big as to be unmaintainable, it's probably time to revisit how you're
doing your CSS to begin with.

Erik
__
css-discuss [cs...@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/

Re: [css-d] css validation help

[Alan Gresley]

Erik Vorhes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Alan Gresley wrote:
>> The best way is to only hack IE7 or lower since all modern browsers
>> (including IE8) should render a page the same way. I would not recommend
>> hacking your HTML with IE Conditional comments since they are not in one
>> location and thus not easily removed.
>>
> 
> Alan,
> 
> Decentralization of CSS may sometimes pose an issue, but using
> conditional comments for IE isn't actually a hack. It's using a
> proprietary Microsoft extension; every other browser simply treats
> conditional comments as regular comments. The additional benefit of
> conditional comments is that you can use other proprietary Microsoft
> CSS extensions (e.g., "zoom" and various JScript expressions) within
> them without causing your code to invalidate.

Hello Erik,

This is still hacking HTML for IE7 or lower due to lack of support for 
CSS2.1. My CSS and hacks are *centralized* as oppose to being 
*decentralized* in the HTML. They can be removed in a flash.


> I'd actually argue that if your conditional IE 6-7 CSS files are so
> big as to be unmaintainable, it's probably time to revisit how you're
> doing your CSS to begin with.
> 
> Erik


This is how I now serve IE7 or below my special CSS.





My regular CSS,




and IE7 fixes. Yes there were IE8 beta fixes to.




My CSS is never unmaintainable, but rather a bit to nasty for the 
browsers to handle. CSS could be much more simpler with much lest ids' 
and classes' in the HTML code and the use of sibling, structural pseudo 
   and attribute selectors.




These selectors and minimal use of ids' and classes' in the HTML is 
demo'd here.




This demo holds quite well together in IE7. It even looks better in 
IE5/Mac than it does in IE6. I not here to support IE6 or any other 
antiquated browsers. My CSS is hopefully a glimpse into the future.


-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
__
css-discuss [cs...@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/

Re: [css-d] css validation help

[david]

Alan Gresley wrote:
> Erik Vorhes wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Alan Gresley wrote:
>>> The best way is to only hack IE7 or lower since all modern browsers
>>> (including IE8) should render a page the same way. I would not recommend
>>> hacking your HTML with IE Conditional comments since they are not in one
>>> location and thus not easily removed.
>>>
>> Alan,
>>
>> Decentralization of CSS may sometimes pose an issue, but using
>> conditional comments for IE isn't actually a hack. It's using a
>> proprietary Microsoft extension; every other browser simply treats
>> conditional comments as regular comments. The additional benefit of
>> conditional comments is that you can use other proprietary Microsoft
>> CSS extensions (e.g., "zoom" and various JScript expressions) within
>> them without causing your code to invalidate.
> 
> Hello Erik,
> 
> This is still hacking HTML for IE7 or lower due to lack of support for 
> CSS2.1. My CSS and hacks are *centralized* as oppose to being 
> *decentralized* in the HTML. They can be removed in a flash.

All your conditional comment (in the HTML) needs to contain is a style 
link pulling in whatever stylesheet you want to feed IE. Then your CSS 
is not in the HTML, just the stylesheet an IE browser pulls in when it 
processes your conditional comment.

-- 
David
gn...@hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
__
css-discuss [cs...@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/

Re: [css-d] css validation help

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

Just 2 notes on this:

On Jul 17, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Alan Gresley wrote:

> I would not recommend
> hacking your HTML with IE Conditional comments since they are not in  
> one
> location and thus not easily removed.


1. If your website is larger than 3 pages and reuses the same  
stylesheets, I hope you use server-side templates :-). From the humble  
(yet quite powerful) SSI to PHP, ASP or other name-you-favourite  
server side language, an include to load your block of   with CC's in it.

No need for support for IE anymore? Just remove a couple of lines out  
of that include, upload done. Let the server do the rest of the job.

2. multiple @imports and nested constructs:

On Jul 18, 2009, at 12:31 AM, Alan Gresley wrote:

> My regular CSS,
>
> 

You do know that such constructs are detrimental to performance and  
page load, esp. in IE, do you?
Fex:
http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/04/09/dont-use-import/
take this with a grain of salt, but I did some similar tests with IE  
running on an older machine, and multiple @imports do slow down things.

My 2¥,

Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/





__
css-discuss [cs...@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/

Re: [css-d] css validation help

[Brian Hazelton]

Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
> Just 2 notes on this:
>
> On Jul 17, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Alan Gresley wrote:
>
>   
>> I would not recommend
>> hacking your HTML with IE Conditional comments since they are not in  
>> one
>> location and thus not easily removed.
>> 
>
>
> 1. If your website is larger than 3 pages and reuses the same  
> stylesheets, I hope you use server-side templates :-). From the humble  
> (yet quite powerful) SSI to PHP, ASP or other name-you-favourite  
> server side language, an include to load your block of  rel="stylesheet" ...>  with CC's in it.
>
> No need for support for IE anymore? Just remove a couple of lines out  
> of that include, upload done. Let the server do the rest of the job.
>
> 2. multiple @imports and nested constructs:
>
> On Jul 18, 2009, at 12:31 AM, Alan Gresley wrote:
>
>   
>> My regular CSS,
>>
>> 
>> 
>
> You do know that such constructs are detrimental to performance and  
> page load, esp. in IE, do you?
> Fex:
> http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/04/09/dont-use-import/
> take this with a grain of salt, but I did some similar tests with IE  
> running on an older machine, and multiple @imports do slow down things.
>
> My 2¥,
>
> Philippe
> ---
> Philippe Wittenbergh
> http://l-c-n.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> __
> css-discuss [cs...@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/
>
>   
This page discusses using php to load stylesheets 
automatically.http://www.veridian-systems.com/blog/blogs/blog5.php/2009/07/17/php-site-maintenance
__
css-discuss [cs...@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/

Re: [css-d] css validation help

[Alan Gresley]

david wrote:
> Alan Gresley wrote:
[...]
>> Hello Erik,
>>
>> This is still hacking HTML for IE7 or lower due to lack of support for 
>> CSS2.1. My CSS and hacks are *centralized* as oppose to being 
>> *decentralized* in the HTML. They can be removed in a flash.
> 
> All your conditional comment (in the HTML) needs to contain is a style 
> link pulling in whatever stylesheet you want to feed IE. Then your CSS 
> is not in the HTML, just the stylesheet an IE browser pulls in when it 
> processes your conditional comment.


This is what I do anyway by this.

@import test-ie; /* For IE/Win */

All other browsers (non IE7 or lower) will skip that import since it is 
invalid.

All comments  are downloaded by every browser. Even if the code 
is a server side template, each and every page visited by a browser has 
to download such possible code.




Though with my CSS file with IE @import, all browser have the CSS 
already cached so is only downloaded once. If I wrong in this, please 
point out my error.


-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
__
css-discuss [cs...@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/

Re: [css-d] css validation help

[Alan Gresley]

Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
> 
> Just 2 notes on this:
> 
> On Jul 17, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Alan Gresley wrote:
> 
>> I would not recommend
>> hacking your HTML with IE Conditional comments since they are not in one
>> location and thus not easily removed.
> 
> 
> 1. If your website is larger than 3 pages and reuses the same 
> stylesheets, I hope you use server-side templates :-). From the humble 
> (yet quite powerful) SSI to PHP, ASP or other name-you-favourite server 
> side language, an include to load your block of  ...>  with CC's in it.


Hello Philippe,

Yes I do use server side includes which I would place CC comments in if 
needed. This I do not frown on since it's centralized.

I only state this issue about CC because coders who are new to this list 
may pollute their non server-side templates or standard HTML with CC on 
the advice that CC are ok to use. The whole  element or elements 
within the  element can be server-side templates.


> No need for support for IE anymore? Just remove a couple of lines out of 
> that include, upload done. Let the server do the rest of the job.
> 
> 2. multiple @imports and nested constructs:
> 
> On Jul 18, 2009, at 12:31 AM, Alan Gresley wrote:
> 
>> My regular CSS,
>>
>> 
> 
> You do know that such constructs are detrimental to performance and page 
> load, esp. in IE, do you?


Internet Explorer is a detriment to the progress (interoperability) of 
the of the Internet or Intranet. Surely this list isn't here just to 
nurse *that browser* along.

Is the detriment to performance balanced by the lessor code that is is 
in the CSS and HTML. Yes the CSS is targeting many elements at once but 
the matching of this against ids' or classes in the HTML is not needed.

> Fex:
> http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/04/09/dont-use-import/
> take this with a grain of salt, but I did some similar tests with IE 
> running on an older machine, and multiple @imports do slow down things.
> 
> My 2¥,
> 
> Philippe
> ---
> Philippe Wittenbergh
> http://l-c-n.com/


I accept your point of view Philippe. I do like to help others with IE7 
at least. But I see that the continue focus of a legacy does hold back 
where CSS can go. I not saying that my method is a good way, just that 
it is an option. My used of @imports is just to support IE7 or lower. I 
have been influenced by Georg and his masterpiece.

http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_02_01.html


I just see no point in compromising ones code just to fit in with IE 
bugs and legacy behavior.


-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
__
css-discuss [cs...@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/

Re: [css-d] css validation help

[David Laakso]

Alan Gresley wrote:
>
>  I 
> have been influenced by Georg and his masterpiece.
>
> http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_02_01.html
>
>
>
>   



Indeed. Interesting fellow, Georg: On feeding styles to Redmond...

(works for me)









__
css-discuss [cs...@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/

Re: [css-d] CSS validation warnings question

[Brian Cummiskey]

Terri Chicko wrote:
> It says my CSS validates but I have 22 warnings all similar. Sorry, I  
> know these are dumb... but I don't understand.
>
> Warning
> "Same colors for color and background-color in two contexts #headline  
> and h1"
> Thanks
> Terri
>   
This means you have a background color that equals the foreground color, 
ie White on White.

It gives you a warning, as technically, this text is not visible.
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS validation warnings question

[Richard Grevers]

On 8/8/07, Brian Cummiskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terri Chicko wrote:
> > It says my CSS validates but I have 22 warnings all similar. Sorry, I
> > know these are dumb... but I don't understand.
> >
> > Warning
> > "Same colors for color and background-color in two contexts #headline
> > and h1"
> > Thanks
> > Terri
> >
> This means you have a background color that equals the foreground color,
> ie White on White.
>
> It gives you a warning, as technically, this text is not visible.

I'll just add that the validator has no knowledge that you have no
intention of ever combining #headline and h1 in the same element.
The irony is that if you have #fe on #ff, the validator won't
issue a warning, but it will still be "invisible".

-- 
Richard Grevers, New Plymouth, New Zealand
Dramatic Design www.dramatic.co.nz
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS validation tool question

[David Dorward]

On 19/04/06, Terri Chicko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However when I went to validate the CSS it's OK but I don't
> understand these warnings.
> What am I doing or not doing?

> Line : 12 (Level : 1) You have no color with your background-color :
> #strip

#strip {
  background-color: black;
}

Once you throw in browser default style sheets and user stylesheets,
you could end up with black on black.

compare to:

#strip {
  background-color: black;
  color: white;
}

> Line : 24 (Level : 1) Same colors for color and background-color in
> two contexts a:visited and h1

a:hover {
 color : #a9caaf;
 background-color : #005d00;
}

h1 {
 color : #005d00;
}

This wouldn't be a problem as you can't have an h1 descending from an
anchor and the anchor + hover selector is more specific, but the
validator doesn't know HTML syntax rules so it can't determine that
you won't have an h1 that is a descendent of an a and thus end up with
#005d00 text on a #005d00 background.

--
David Dorward 
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] CSS validation error in Line 1

[Karen Dec]

I ran my CSS through the W3C validation and I was able to fix 
everything but 1 error that I don't understand. Here is the error 
message:


Line: 1 Context : ???

Parse Error - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "UTF-8";

My CSS starts with:

@charset "UTF-8";

Is that not correct? Any enlightenment on this would be much 
appreciated. Thanks!


Karen

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS validation error in Line 1

[Karen Dec]

I do have that exact meta tag in my XHTML code for the page.
My XHTML validates with no problems.
The error I was mentioning is when I try to validate my external 
stylesheet with the CSS validator.


Thanks,
Karen

On Jul 16, 2005, at 10:01 PM, David Bailey wrote:

I'm not an expert and use BBEdit which adds in the Doctype 
automatically,

but I believe it should be:



David


From: Karen Dec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:45:48 -0400
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: [css-d] CSS validation error in Line 1

I ran my CSS through the W3C validation and I was able to fix
everything but 1 error that I don't understand. Here is the error
message:

Line: 1 Context : ???

Parse Error - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "UTF-8";

My CSS starts with:

@charset "UTF-8";

Is that not correct? Any enlightenment on this would be much
appreciated. Thanks!

Karen


__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS validation error in Line 1

[Andrew Clover]

Karen Dec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Parse Error - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "UTF-8";



My CSS starts with:



@charset "UTF-8";


Your text editor is not showing you everything that's actually in the 
file. There are three high bytes before the @charset, and the validator 
doesn't like it.


Those three bytes are the UTF-8 representation of the Unicode character 
FEFF, which is used as the "Byte Order Mark" in UTF-16 to distinguish 
between the two different byte ordering flavours it can use (ugh, UTF-16 
is nasty). In that case the character is meaningless and is removed 
before it gets to the parser.


Including a BOM in UTF-8 (or, more accurately, 'signature', since there 
is no byte order problem to solve here) is more controversial, since it 
buggers up UTF-8's goal of compatibility for ASCII tools, and is in 
general a bit pointless.


I would advise against using the BOM/signature in UTF-8. (Whether the 
validator is right to disallow it is not clear to me from spec.) Check 
the save box of your text editor for an option to 'include BOM' or 
'signature' and turn it off.


Alternatively, to avoid all CSS encoding issues, use plain ASCII with 
backslash-escapes for any special characters.


--
Andrew Clover
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.doxdesk.com/
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] CSS Validation Error: Content is not allowed in prolog.

[Blake]

Hi guys,

I just got a very strange CSS error when validating
.

The CSS Validator comes up with the following error:

Target: http://www.blakehaswell.com/blog/

Please, validate your XML document first!

Line 1

Column 1

Content is not allowed in prolog.

I have never seen this error before and have no idea how to fix it. Any ideas?

-- 
Australian Web Designer - http://www.blakehaswell.com/
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation Error: Content is not allowed in prolog.

[Peter Hyde-Smith]

- Original Message - 
From: "Blake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi guys,
>
> I just got a very strange CSS error when validating
> .
>
> The CSS Validator comes up with the following error:
>
>Target: http://www.blakehaswell.com/blog/
>Please, validate your XML document first!
>Line 1
>Column 1
>Content is not allowed in prolog.
> I have never seen this error before and have no idea how to fix it. Any 
> ideas?
> Australian Web Designer - http://www.blakehaswell.com/

Blake:

It validates for me XHTML 1.0 Strict in FF2.0/WINXP, with warning,
  Byte-Order Mark found in UTF-8 File.

  The Unicode Byte-Order Mark (BOM) in UTF-8 encoded files is known to cause 
problems for some text editors and older browsers. You may want to consider 
avoiding its use until it is better supported.

Google gives, http://www.ozzu.com/ftopic68872.html

It may be you browser or text editor that's causing the problem.

Cheers,

Peter
www.fatpawdesign.com

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] CSS Validation Error: Content is not allowed in prolog.

[Blake]

On 2/6/07, Peter Hyde-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Google gives, http://www.ozzu.com/ftopic68872.html
>
> It may be you browser or text editor that's causing the problem.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
> www.fatpawdesign.com

Wonderful. Changed encoding in Notepad++ to UTF-8 without BOM.
Everything validates like it should. Thanks. :-)

-- 
Australian Web Designer - http://www.blakehaswell.com/
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/