designer wrote:
If I'm missing something here, perhaps one of our learned colleagues
will tell me?
Bob, I don't think you are missing anything !important so far :-)
Lynne Pope wrote:
Your splash page validates in xhtml, but the rest of your site has
css errors:
Errors URI : http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/rhh/gam/altgam/altgam.css
- Line: 6 Context : html
Property text-justify doesn't exist : newspaper - Line: 62 Context :
#container
Property text-justify doesn't exist : newspaper
Hope not :-) as that would be the same as if the CSS validator
recognized the proprietary 'display: -moz-inline-box;' as valid.
It is not as easy to hide proprietary and 'not-yet-recommended' CSS from
the validator, as it is with all the garbage often needed to make IE/win
behave.
OTOH: hiding something in a conditional comment (or in a 'non-existent
stylesheet', like I do at times) doesn't make it more valid - just hidden.
BTW: non-valid CSS doesn't affect HTML/XHTML status/validity at all.
It does not validate at all as HTML 4.01 Strict - are you sure you
are checking validation against that DOCTYPE?
This sounds a bit strange to me.
Which source-code should be checked as HTML4.01?
Given the fact that the validator is fed an XHTML1.1 page with the
correct MIME-type by default, is it even possible to check that
source-code as HTML? I would think not.
Enforcing the validator wouldn't work - and it shouldn't since the
source-code isn't 'HTML4.01 Anything' when it's served to the validator.
---------------
No wonder some web developers are confused, and others warn strongly
against using XHTML. Even those who happen to know how XHTML may/should
be made to work might find themselves sidelined for no good reasons at
all :-)
To exemplify...
All the following are valid XHTML and can be validated as such:
<http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03.html>
<http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03.xhtml>
<http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03.xml>
...they will even work as XHTML in XML compliant browsers.
All the following are non-valid XHTML, and the validator will tell you so:
<http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03-notvalid.html>
<http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03-notvalid.xhtml>
<http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03-notvalid.xml>
...only the first will survive in any browser - as tag-soup.
Don't bother to check the CSS, as that isn't even supposed to pass
validation. Also, unless one has a keen eye, it might be a little hard
to figure out where all the 'IE/win-only garbage' is hidden away.
The entire site these 6 almost identical pages are in, is a testbed for
what works and what doesn't. The difference *may* be quite interesting
to know at times, when dealing with buggy browsers.
Even the validators are under constant attacks, and they are far from
flawless :-)
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
