Hi
I guess it's understand the consequences and use at your own risk. I doubt a
vendor will change the spelling and if they do, I'm pretty sure they'd
maintain BC by allowing both to work.
Using the example of *-radius, the vendor differences are more to do with
what the values selected will rende
On 4 Feb 2010, at 07:42, Joshua Street wrote:
>> The validator does correctly parse as per the spec. The spec defines a way
>> for vendor prefixes to exist without conflicting with anything in CSS, no
>> more. This makes them part of the grammar, not the vocabulary, and the
>> validator checks
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:16 PM, David Dorward wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2010, at 03:29, Joshua Street wrote:
>>> The prefix may be "part of it" to address parsing issues, but - afaik - that
>>> does not make these extensions CSS properties.
>>
>> Indeed - yet therein lies the frustration at the validator
On 4 Feb 2010, at 03:29, Joshua Street wrote:
>>
>> The prefix may be "part of it" to address parsing issues, but - afaik - that
>> does not make these extensions CSS properties.
>
> Indeed - yet therein lies the frustration at the validator failing to
> correctly parse as per spec.
The valid
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Thierry Koblentz
wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Koblentz
>> wrote:
>> > -moz is a vendor prefix (not CSS3)
>>
>> Actually, vendor prefixes are a part of both CSS 2.1
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords as well as the
>> CS
ius" come *last* in the declaration block
--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of James Ellis
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:10 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Erro
> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
> On Behalf Of Joshua Street
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 5:59 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Validation Error
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Koblentz
Hi
You can safely ignore any -prefix validation errors (-moz, -webkit, -opera)
- they are never going to validate on the W3C validator. The point of the
vendor specific rules is to do stuff the W3C haven't standardised yet.
The validator should probably ignore them as well. If you really must hav
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Thierry Koblentz
wrote:
> -moz is a vendor prefix (not CSS3)
Actually, vendor prefixes are a part of both CSS 2.1
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords as well as the
CSS3 working draft... they're for proprietary extensions, of course,
but it's a
-moz is a vendor prefix (not CSS3)
--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Daniel Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 3:12 PM
To: wsg
Subject: [WSG] CSS Validation Error
When I am vali
font: [italics/bold/etc] [size]/[line-height] ["two
words"],[fam2],[fam3],[etc];
Kevin Futter wrote:
My understanding was that there shouldn't be a comma in the shorthand font
selector after "Trebuchet MS" (but I could be wrong ...).
Cheers,
Kevin Futter
On 20/9/04 4:26 PM, "John Oxton" <[EMAIL P
It appears from another post that I am wrong! Oh well ...
Kevin Futter
On 21/9/04 8:56 AM, "Kevin Futter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My understanding was that there shouldn't be a comma in the shorthand font
> selector after "Trebuchet MS" (but I could be wrong ...).
>
> Cheers,
> Kevin Futte
My understanding was that there shouldn't be a comma in the shorthand font
selector after "Trebuchet MS" (but I could be wrong ...).
Cheers,
Kevin Futter
On 20/9/04 4:26 PM, "John Oxton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe you could try not using the font shorthand to get it to validate,
> try it
Thanks John and Ryan - the problem was something to do with the menu
list item styles. It was way down the bottom of the page - I was going
crazy because I thought that error report referred to the body style
(which was at the top of the page). I only realised that must have been
the problem wh
I just checked out your CSS file, and it validates now. Whatever you did
to fix it worked :)
Just to touch base on that font shorthand:
font: [italics/bold/etc] [size]/[line-height] ["family
1"],[fam2],[fam3],[etc];
I haven't experiemented with what can be left in/out and still having it
valid
Maybe you could try not using the font shorthand to get it to validate,
try it as font-family etc. Could it be that there is something missing
from that rule? Certainly one I have had problem with before.
Cameron Muir wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out John - serves me right for not cleaning ou
Thanks for pointing that out John - serves me right for not cleaning out
disused styles.
However, I'm still getting the same error.
John Oxton wrote:
Hi Cameron,
You have this
.paymate {
position: relative:
top: 20px;
right: 10px;
}
the position:relative needs a semi colon and you sho
Hi Cameron,
You have this
.paymate {
position: relative:
top: 20px;
right: 10px;
}
the position:relative needs a semi colon and you should be on your way
Regards,
John,
Cameron Muir wrote:
Hello,
I can't work out why this is producing an error. I'm sure there must be
a simp
18 matches
Mail list logo
