Re: [css-d] W3C CSS Validation Service
On 31/12/2010 7:44 PM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
I don't know if it is just a case of excessive nostalgia, but
am I alone in thinking that the W3C CSS service is not what it
once was (in terms of Q.A., that is) ? I ask because I have
recently thrown a number of putatively CSS documents at it,
the most recent being :
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Flettershop.ehclients.com%2Fcss%2Fall.cssprofile=css21usermedium=allwarning=1lang=en
and the results returned are, in the main, complete and utter
nonsense. What, for example, does it mean by
2 Value Error : font-family
Property font-family doesn't exist in CSS
level 2.1 but exists in : 'Titillium Text22L
Bold' 'Titillium Text22L Bold'
or
Property src doesn't exist :
url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot')
url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot')
The first is meaningful up to but exists in, then drifts
off into nonsense, whilst the second makes references to
a property that doesn't occur in the cited text fragment.
I am convinced that it used to do considerably better than
this; what do others think ?
Philip Taylor
What do you inspect to happen with embed font? The validator sees your
CSS as junk. Why don't you try to validate as CSS3.
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Flettershop.ehclients.com%2Fcss%2Fall.cssprofile=css3usermedium=allwarning=1lang=en
Only one error. Cool. :-)
--
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] W3C CSS Validation Service
Alan Gresley wrote:
What do you inspect to happen with embed font? The validator sees your
CSS as junk. Why don't you try to validate as CSS3.
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Flettershop.ehclients.com%2Fcss%2Fall.cssprofile=css3usermedium=allwarning=1lang=en
Only one error. Cool. :-)
What the validator sees it as is not my point; what I was
expecting was a meaningful diagnostic, such as
2 Value Error : font-family
Property font-family doesn't exist in CSS
level 2.1 but exists in CSS level 3
and/or
Property src doesn't exist :
src: url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot');
rather than the apparently arbitrary strings that the
validator is currently issuing.
Philip Taylor
__
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] W3C CSS Validation Service
On 31/12/2010 10:16 PM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
Alan Gresley wrote:
What do you inspect to happen with embed font? The validator sees
your CSS as junk. Why don't you try to validate as CSS3.
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Flettershop.ehclients.com%2Fcss%2Fall.cssprofile=css3usermedium=allwarning=1lang=en
Only one error. Cool. :-)
What the validator sees it as is not my point; what I was expecting
was a meaningful diagnostic, such as
2 Value Error : font-family Property font-family doesn't exist in
CSS level 2.1 but exists in CSS level 3
Firstly it treats this as valid CSS2.1.
@font-face { }
It say this is a value error.
@font-face { font-family: ; }
So for the first block we have this,
Parse Error [: 'Titillium Text22L Bold'; src :
url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot'); src : local('O')]
Parse Error [ url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.woff')
format('woff')]
Parse Error [ url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.svg#Titillium
Text22L Bold') format('svg')]
Parse Error [ url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.otf')
format('opentype'); ]
via direct input.
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/#validate_by_input
Since it is being parsed as CSS2.1, it is looking for syntax like the
following.
font-family:lucida grande,tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;
and/or
Property src doesn't exist : src:
url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot');
If you have this via direct input.
body {
margin: 10px;
src: url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot');
padding: 20px;
}
You get this.
Property src doesn't exist :
url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot')
url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot')
Which is almost the same as you were seeking.
rather than the apparently arbitrary strings that the validator is
currently issuing.
Philip Taylor
It not so arbitrary since different snippets via direct input will give
different errors.
--
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] W3C CSS Validation Service
Alan Gresley wrote:
What the validator sees it as is not my point; what I was expecting
was a meaningful diagnostic, such as
2 Value Error : font-family Property font-family doesn't exist in
CSS level 2.1 but exists in CSS level 3
Firstly it treats this as valid CSS2.1.
(snip)
OK, but this still seems to be ignoring the main issue.
The validator says Value error : Property whatever
doesn't exist in CSS 2.1 but exists in At that
point, the user would reasonably expect to be told in
which dialect(s) of CSS Property whatever exists;
instead, he is told exist in ... a string from his
CSS, not containing said property, which is then repeated
for no apparent reason whatsoever.
If you have this via direct input.
body {
margin: 10px;
src: url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot');
padding: 20px;
}
You get this.
Property src doesn't exist :
url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot')
url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot')
Which is almost the same as you were seeking.
No it's not : it's totally different. What I am seeking
is a mention of this property src that does not exist,
not a quasi-random snippet of the CSS that (a) does not
contain src, and (b) is once again repeated for no
apparent reason whatsoever.
I am sorry, Alan, the validator seems to be a complete
and utter mess at the moment, no matter how generously
you seek to defend its aberrant behaviour.
Philip Taylor
__
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] W3C CSS Validation Service
On 12/31/10 7:31 AM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: I am sorry, Alan, the validator seems to be a complete and utter mess at the moment, no matter how generously you seek to defend its aberrant behaviour. Philip Taylor How to provide feedback on w3c's CSS Validation Service http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/Email.html ~d -- http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ http://chelseacreekstudio.com/fa/ __ 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] W3C CSS Validation Service
On 31/12/2010 11:31 PM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
Alan Gresley wrote:
[snip]
If you have this via direct input.
body {
margin: 10px;
src: url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot');
padding: 20px;
}
You get this.
Property src doesn't exist :
url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot')
url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot')
Which is almost the same as you were seeking.
No it's not : it's totally different. What I am seeking
is a mention of this property src that does not exist,
not a quasi-random snippet of the CSS that (a) does not
contain src, and (b) is once again repeated for no
apparent reason whatsoever.
But that is what it says.
Property src doesn't exist
I am sorry, Alan, the validator seems to be a complete
and utter mess at the moment, no matter how generously
you seek to defend its aberrant behaviour.
Philip Taylor
I'm not defending the validator. What I saying is that the validator see
your syntax as junk and spit out junk in the error report. If you come
back a month later it may be slightly different.
I do believe the onus is on the author to use the correct level of CSS
for a correct report since CSS doesn't have a thing called a Doctype.
--
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] W3C CSS Validation Service
Before providing feedback, David, I am trying to establish whether there is a real problem or whether there is an error of perception. Which is why it would be nice to try and achieve consensus on this list as to whether or not the validator is behaving aberrantly before raising it with the W3C Validator team. Philip Taylor David Laakso wrote: How to provide feedback on w3c's CSS Validation Service http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/Email.html ~d -- http://tinyurl.com/Ipad-signatures-just-say-NO __ 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] W3C CSS Validation Service
Alan Gresley wrote:
Property src doesn't exist :
url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot')
url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot')
Which is almost the same as you were seeking.
No it's not : it's totally different. What I am seeking
is a mention of this property src that does not exist,
not a quasi-random snippet of the CSS that (a) does not
contain src, and (b) is once again repeated for no
apparent reason whatsoever.
But that is what it says.
Property src doesn't exist
Yes, but NOT (apologies for shouting) in the fragment that
it then echoes, and then -- for no apparent reason -- repeats.
I do believe the onus is on the author to use the correct level of CSS
for a correct report since CSS doesn't have a thing called a Doctype.
There may well be merit in that argument, but are beginning authors
such as Rory likely to be aware of which level of CSS they are
apparently trying to use, particularly when recycling code fragments
from other sites ?
Philip Taylor
__
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] W3C CSS Validation Service
* Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
What, for example, does it mean by
2Value Error : font-family
Property font-family doesn't exist in CSS
level 2.1 but exists in : 'Titillium Text22L
Bold' 'Titillium Text22L Bold'
or
Property src doesn't exist :
url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot')
url('../fonts/TitilliumText22L005-webfont.eot')
These two are rubbish, as you say in the first one you'd expect the CSS
variant where this does exist, and the second one (and by extension the
first one aswell) is rubbish because @font-face doesn't encapsulate
properties, but font descriptors. The pretty printed version of the
style sheet is broken aswell with empty blocks.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
__
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] W3C CSS Validation Service
So : I have simplified Rory's all.css down to the shortest
fragment than can generate a diagnostic from the validator :
@font-face
{
font-family:foo;
}
Here is what the validator says :
Property font-family doesn't exist in CSS level 2.1 but exists in : foo foo
Would other CSS-D members agree that
(a) A diagnostic Property X does not exist in CSS level Y
but exists in : could reasonably be expected to continue by
citing the dialect(s) of CSS in which Property X /does/ exist ?
(b) The statement Property X doesn't exist in CSS level Y
but exists in : foo foo is completely wrong
(it does /not/ exist in foo foo ) and would appear
to be the result of an error in the coding of the validator ?
and
(c) That the repetition in foo foo, which does not occur
in the source, is also an indication of an apparent error
in the coding of the validator ?
If there is some degree of agreement on this, I will submit feedback
to the W3C Validator team.
Philip Taylor
__
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] W3C CSS Validation Service
On 1/01/2011 12:26 AM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
So : I have simplified Rory's all.css down to the shortest
fragment than can generate a diagnostic from the validator :
@font-face
{
font-family:foo;
}
Here is what the validator says :
Property font-family doesn't exist in CSS level 2.1 but exists in :
foo foo
Would other CSS-D members agree that
(a) A diagnostic Property X does not exist in CSS level Y
but exists in : could reasonably be expected to continue by
citing the dialect(s) of CSS in which Property X /does/ exist ?
(b) The statement Property X doesn't exist in CSS level Y
but exists in : foo foo is completely wrong
(it does /not/ exist in foo foo ) and would appear
to be the result of an error in the coding of the validator ?
Then this is what feedback you can give.
Take this string.
svg {opacity:0.5}
The report back is.
Property opacity doesn't exist in CSS level 2.1 but exists in : 0.5 0.5
A little over a week ago, it did say but exists in CSS level 3
--
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] W3C CSS Validation Service
On Dec 31, 2010, at 10:26 PM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
@font-face
{
font-family:foo;
}
Here is what the validator says :
Property font-family doesn't exist in CSS level 2.1 but exists in : foo foo
I would argue that the first error _per CSS 2.1_ in this is '@font-face'
that @rule is not defined in CSS 2.1 (but is grammatically valid). From there
on I'd expect the validator to ignore everything between the opening '{' and
closing '}'.
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] W3C CSS Validation Service
Alan Gresley wrote:
Then this is what feedback you can give.
Take this string.
svg {opacity:0.5}
The report back is.
Property opacity doesn't exist in CSS level 2.1 but exists in : 0.5 0.5
A little over a week ago, it did say but exists in CSS level 3
Fine, so we agree : the validator has (once again) taken a backward
step. That was the premiss on which I started this thread, so I am
glad that there is now agreement that this is indeed the case and
a suitable error report can therefore be submitted.
Philip Taylor
__
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/
