Re: [css-d] Trumping bad proprietary code.
On Thursday, 8 November 2012, Philip TAYLOR wrote: > > In no circumstances should the validator ever report as correct > a document that deviates one iota from the published specification; > once it does that, even for just one special case, it ceases to be > a validator and becomes just another piece of pragmatic junk. > Hear hear. The validator is very clear on its single, inflexible and unambiguous purpose: ruthlessly determine whether or not code is specification conformant. No more, no less. Meanwhile for those who want something else out of it (by which I refer to the silent majority who don't give two hoots about specification-validity but live and die by the pragmatism of their junk ;), you're looking in the wrong place. You may find what you're looking for here, though: http://csslint.net/ -- Regards, Barney Carroll barney.carr...@gmail.com +44 7429 177278 barneycarroll.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] Trumping bad proprietary code.
Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: The fix for that is to update the W3C Validator to just issue a Warning for zoom:1 or even better to have a setting to ignore it totally. Note that in either case, it is ONLY zoom:1 that is special cased - Any other zoom (such as zoom:1.5 or zoom:2) would still get an error. The fix (if there is a fix) is to approach the CSS WG and ask whether, in their opinion, the introduction of a "zoom" property wih a required value of "1" would be compatible with their aims for the evolution of CSS. If they say "yes", than ask if they are therefore willing to adopt it into the specification; if they say "no", then continue to treat any document containing "zoom: 1" with extreme caution and assume that it will cease to function correctly at some point in time. In no circumstances should the validator ever report as correct a document that deviates one iota from the published specification; once it does that, even for just one special case, it ceases to be a validator and becomes just another piece of pragmatic junk. 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] Trumping bad proprietary code.
At 19:45 +0100 on 11/06/2012, =?UTF-8?B?U3VzYW5uZSBKw6RnZXI=?= wrote about Re: [css-d] Trumping bad proprietary code.: But all other methods have a real effect (and side effects), that may not fit in a special environment. zoom: 1; is wonderful meaningless, it does nothing (beside fixing a stupid old IE bug). The only real problem I see, is that you might miss an important validation error, when you get used to ignoring some. The fix for that is to update the W3C Validator to just issue a Warning for zoom:1 or even better to have a setting to ignore it totally. Note that in either case, it is ONLY zoom:1 that is special cased - Any other zoom (such as zoom:1.5 or zoom:2) would still get an 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] Trumping bad proprietary code.
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> Wishing (as always) to keep my sites 100% W3C standards compliant,
> I am stuck with a bad property in proprietary code. The offending
> rule reads :
>
> .qmmc {position:relative;zoom:1;}
>
>
Put zoom:1; in a conditional comment. This does not make it valid; however,
the w3c validation service will not see it.
Best,
David Laakso
--
Chelsea Creek Studio
http://ccstudi.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] Trumping bad proprietary code.
David Hucklesby schrieb am 06.11.2012 18:07: There are other ways of giving old IE "layout" other than using the proprietary "zoom" property, of course: http://www.satzansatz.de/cssd/onhavinglayout.html#prop But all other methods have a real effect (and side effects), that may not fit in a special environment. zoom: 1; is wonderful meaningless, it does nothing (beside fixing a stupid old IE bug). The only real problem I see, is that you might miss an important validation error, when you get used to ignoring some. greetings Susanne __ 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] Trumping bad proprietary code.
Barney Carroll wrote: This is what seals it for me. I don't have user testing studies to back the assertion up, but generally I assume users prefer websites that work in whatever browser they're using to seeing a 'W3C CSS valid' sticker at the bottom. Just to clarify : I have neither the intention nor the desire add a "W3C Valid" logo, link, or any analogous waste of space. I want to the code to be valid because "invalid" means "wrong". Period. If it's valid and doesn't work, then the browser is defective (or aberrant : see recent thread concerning the "content" model for elements). Yes, I would like the code to work in any modern browser; but if I have a choice between "valid" with 9/10 browsers, and "invalid" with 10/10 browsers, I will opt for "valid". Let the users of the 1/10 defective/aberrant browsers whinge like hell to their browser vendor and point him/her/them/it at the relevant W3C specification. 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] Trumping bad proprietary code.
On Tuesday, 6 November 2012, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: > > Just so you are aware, zoom:1 is a Windows/IE hack/fix to set HasLayOut so > the element displays correctly. Aside from making the code display > correctly in IE, it has no downside/effect with non-IE browsers so you can > ignore it (or consider it W3C compliant since its purpose it to make IE act > W3C compliant). > This is what seals it for me. I don't have user testing studies to back the assertion up, but generally I assume users prefer websites that work in whatever browser they're using to seeing a 'W3C CSS valid' sticker at the bottom. And when it comes to inheriting code that doesn't match my own style, my rule of thumb is to leave it be unless it causes problems and I feel confident I understand and can circumvent the underlying reasons behind it. -- Regards, Barney Carroll barney.carr...@gmail.com +44 7429 177278 barneycarroll.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] Trumping bad proprietary code.
At 15:25 + on 11/06/2012, Philip TAYLOR wrote about [css-d]
Trumping bad proprietary code.:
Wishing (as always) to keep my sites 100% W3C standards compliant,
I am stuck with a bad property in proprietary code. The offending
rule reads :
.qmmc {position:relative;zoom:1;}
Just so you are aware, zoom:1 is a Windows/IE hack/fix to set
HasLayOut so the element displays correctly. Aside from making the
code display correctly in IE, it has no downside/effect with non-IE
browsers so you can ignore it (or consider it W3C compliant since its
purpose it to make IE act W3C compliant).
__
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] Trumping bad proprietary code.
On 11/6/12 7:40 AM, Philip TAYLOR wrote: Barney Carroll wrote: Meanwhile, you’ll be pleased to know other browsers are implementing zoom too: http://cat-in-136.blogspot.com/2010/09/unofficial-css-property-zoom.html WebKit is the new Trident! Pleased ? No. I would like browsers and rendering engines to implement exactly what the spec. requires, neither more nor less. Then /all/ of our lives would be greatly simplified. Tom Livingston wrote: If you could get into the proprietary code to (presumably) remove the offending property, I wouldn't call that "hacking". Well, it's hacking in the sense that when a new release comes out, I will have to retrofit my hack, which is what I was having to avoid having been bitten with that very problem today ... But, as many have said here in other threads, the validator is a guideline, not a law. We know what the purpose of zoom is and subsequently why your code isn't validating. I personally would be able to live with that. Mumble mumble mumble. It is not validator-compliance that I am seeking; it is W3C standards compliance, which is (sometimes) a very different kiddle of fish ... Ah well, my thanks to you both for your advice. Philip Taylor There are other ways of giving old IE "layout" other than using the proprietary "zoom" property, of course: http://www.satzansatz.de/cssd/onhavinglayout.html#prop -- Cordially, David __ 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] Trumping bad proprietary code.
Barney Carroll wrote: Meanwhile, you’ll be pleased to know other browsers are implementing zoom too: http://cat-in-136.blogspot.com/2010/09/unofficial-css-property-zoom.html WebKit is the new Trident! Pleased ? No. I would like browsers and rendering engines to implement exactly what the spec. requires, neither more nor less. Then /all/ of our lives would be greatly simplified. Tom Livingston wrote: If you could get into the proprietary code to (presumably) remove the offending property, I wouldn't call that "hacking". Well, it's hacking in the sense that when a new release comes out, I will have to retrofit my hack, which is what I was having to avoid having been bitten with that very problem today ... But, as many have said here in other threads, the validator is a guideline, not a law. We know what the purpose of zoom is and subsequently why your code isn't validating. I personally would be able to live with that. Mumble mumble mumble. It is not validator-compliance that I am seeking; it is W3C standards compliance, which is (sometimes) a very different kiddle of fish ... Ah well, my thanks to you both for your advice. 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] Trumping bad proprietary code.
Hi Philip,
If you could get into the proprietary code to (presumably) remove the
offending property, I wouldn't call that "hacking".
But, as many have said here in other threads, the validator is a
guideline, not a law. We know what the purpose of zoom is and
subsequently why your code isn't validating. I personally would be
able to live with that.
Just my 2¢...
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> Wishing (as always) to keep my sites 100% W3C standards compliant,
> I am stuck with a bad property in proprietary code. The offending
> rule reads :
>
> .qmmc {position:relative;zoom:1;}
>
> and so (rather naively) I inserted a later rule in my local
> customisations that reads :
>
> .qmmc {position:relative}
>
> Unfortunately (of course) the Validator still barfs on the earlier
> entry. If it had been a bad property value such as "position:
> sideways", I am reasonably confident that a subsequent re-definition
> as "position: relative" would have been fine, in that (presumably but
> not certainly) the validator evaluates the cascade before deciding
> which rules to validate (is this assertion true ?), but given that
> it is not a bad property value but a bad property, is there nothing
> I can do short of hacking proprietary code to make this site valid ?
>
> 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/
--
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/
Re: [css-d] Trumping bad proprietary code.
Nope!
The position was relative anyway — a new rule matching a selector does not
override all previous rules: it extends them (individual properties will be
over-written).
The W3C validator takes the sum of all things and statically analyses to
see if there’s anything invalid in there at all. It’s a lexer, not a
parser, so whatever the computed value of things is is no business of
its. The zoom property’s still there somewhere, so it’s still invalid.
Meanwhile, you’ll be pleased to know other browsers are implementing zoom
too:
http://cat-in-136.blogspot.com/2010/09/unofficial-css-property-zoom.html
WebKit is the new Trident!
Sent from Windows Mail
*From:* Philip TAYLOR
*Sent:* November 6, 2012 3:25 PM
*To:* css-d@lists.css-discuss.org,www-validator-...@w3.org
*Subject:* [css-d] Trumping bad proprietary code.
Wishing (as always) to keep my sites 100% W3C standards compliant,
I am stuck with a bad property in proprietary code. The offending
rule reads :
.qmmc {position:relative;zoom:1;}
and so (rather naively) I inserted a later rule in my local
customisations that reads :
.qmmc {position:relative}
Unfortunately (of course) the Validator still barfs on the earlier
entry. If it had been a bad property value such as "position:
sideways", I am reasonably confident that a subsequent re-definition
as "position: relative" would have been fine, in that (presumably but
not certainly) the validator evaluates the cascade before deciding
which rules to validate (is this assertion true ?), but given that
it is not a bad property value but a bad property, is there nothing
I can do short of hacking proprietary code to make this site valid ?
Philip Taylor
__**__**__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/**mailman/listinfo/css-d<http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d>
List wiki/FAQ --
http://css-discuss.incutio.**com/<http://css-discuss.incutio.com/>
List policies --
http://css-discuss.org/**policies.html<http://css-discuss.org/policies.html>
Supported by evolt.org --
http://www.evolt.org/help_**support_evolt/<http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/>
__
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] Trumping bad proprietary code.
Wishing (as always) to keep my sites 100% W3C standards compliant,
I am stuck with a bad property in proprietary code. The offending
rule reads :
.qmmc {position:relative;zoom:1;}
and so (rather naively) I inserted a later rule in my local
customisations that reads :
.qmmc {position:relative}
Unfortunately (of course) the Validator still barfs on the earlier
entry. If it had been a bad property value such as "position:
sideways", I am reasonably confident that a subsequent re-definition
as "position: relative" would have been fine, in that (presumably but
not certainly) the validator evaluates the cascade before deciding
which rules to validate (is this assertion true ?), but given that
it is not a bad property value but a bad property, is there nothing
I can do short of hacking proprietary code to make this site valid ?
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/
