Re: [css-d] Question about validation
On 13/03/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #footer a:link {
>background-color : transparent;
>color : #ff;
> }
> I use the W3C CSS Validation and it gives the warning;
>
> Line : 211 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
> #footer a:link
>
> And yet there is a background-color, it's just transparent. I understand
> that it is only a warning, but does the validator not recognize
> transparent as a color?
Transparent isn't a color, it is the lack of one.
What if the user stylesheet had something like this in it:
#footer { background-color: #ff ; color: #00; }
There wouldn't be any problems for text directly in the footer, but
the links would be unreadable. So the validator warns you of the
danger.
--
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/
Re: [css-d] Question about validation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have the following;
>
> #footer a:link {
>background-color : transparent;color : #ff; }
>
> I use the W3C CSS Validation and it gives the warning;
>
> Line : 211 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
> #footer a:link
>
> And yet there is a background-color, it's just transparent. I
understand
> that it is only a warning, but does the validator not recognize
> transparent as a color? I have several of the background-color
warnings,
> but I am supposing that the css is still valid, right?
It's valid, but I think the reason you get the warning is that setting
background to transparent might mean that your text will be invisible,
if for example, a user overrides your background colors with their own.
I've also experienced problems where white text over a dark background
image disappears when text is resized and it no longer sits over the
image, if you see what I mean.
It's a check point - if you're happy it doesn't cause a problem, then
it's okay.
As a side issue, why declare it as transparent when transparent is the
default? (topstyle user? - BTDT ;o) )
--
Join me: http://wiki.workalone.co.uk/
Thank me: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/1VK42TQL7VD2F
Engage me: http://www.boldfish.co.uk/portfolio/
__
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] Question about validation
Tony Crockford wrote: > As a side issue, why declare it as transparent when transparent is the > default? (topstyle user? - BTDT ;o) ) My guess would be that it overrides the normal a:link setting which might indeed have a background color? __ 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] Question about validation
On 13/03/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And yet there is a background-color, it's just transparent. I understand > that it is only a warning, but does the validator not recognize > transparent as a color? I have several of the background-color warnings, > but I am supposing that the css is still valid, right? I can't see anything wrong with your code, so I would guess it's a problem with the validator. -- Olly http://thinkdrastic.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] question about validation/xhtml problems
On 6/13/05, Paul Seale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.mccahongroup.com > > What am I missing? Some of the stuff with javascript I find fascinating - > but the P elements being "undefined" makes no sense to me. XHTML plays by XML rules element and attribute names must be lowercase. What you've written is probably lose to valid as html 4.01 transitional, but if you want to use XHTML, you'd better learn its rules. -- Richard Grevers New Plymouth, New Zealand Orphan Gmail invites free to good homes. __ 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] question about validation/xhtml problems
> What am I missing? Some of the stuff with javascript I find fascinating - > but the P elements being "undefined" makes no sense to me. You are using XHTML, so you have to specify elements and attributes in lowercase. You'll have to replace the UL and P elements with ul and p. XHTML Spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ Refer section 4.2 Prabhath http://nidahas.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] question about validation/xhtml problems
Paul Seale wrote: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.mccahongroup.com What am I missing? Some of the stuff with javascript I find fascinating - but the P elements being "undefined" makes no sense to me. Hmm, aren't all tags in XHTML supposed to be lowercase? Maybe that's what it's complaining about? -- David [EMAIL PROTECTED] authenticity, honesty, community __ 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/
