Stylesheets - validator warning

Author

validator warning

Nije Nego

2006-08-09, 7:14 pm

Does it make sense for w3c validator to issue warning when style is coded

{ padding: 0 0 0 10%; }

It reads 0 as absolute.

--
buy, bought, bye

Harlan Messinger

2006-08-10, 6:39 pm

Nije Nego wrote:
> Does it make sense for w3c validator to issue warning when style is coded
>
> { padding: 0 0 0 10%; }

No, so your flaw must be somewhere else.

> It reads 0 as absolute.

What does that mean?

Nije Nego

2006-08-10, 6:39 pm

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:20:57 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

> Nije Nego wrote:

W3C validator issues a warning:
Line : 150 (Level : 2) You have some absolute and relative lengths in
padding. This is not a robust style sheet.
[color=darkred]
> No, so your flaw must be somewhere else.

No, you can check at http://bruno-s.net
at line 150 you'd find
margin: 0 10% 0 0;

>
> What does that mean?

It seams that w3c reads 0 as px in this combination. I find it strange.
When I change
margin: 0 10% 0 0;
to
margin: 0% 10% 0% %0;
warning dissapears.

--
buy, bought, bye

Jim Moe

2006-08-10, 6:39 pm

Nije Nego wrote:
>
>
> It seams that w3c reads 0 as px in this combination. I find it strange.
> When I change
> margin: 0 10% 0 0;
> to
> margin: 0% 10% 0% %0;
> warning dissapears.
>
The validator apparently does not test for zero values when it scans for
uniform length units. You could send a query to the W3C asking about this
(email link at bottom of Validation page).

BTW: The spelling on the site is rather poor, for example, "Tablelles"
should be "Table-less."
Is English is a second language? I do not, for instance, understand what
"...(recently trough Netvibes ..." means.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Harlan Messinger

2006-08-10, 6:39 pm

Nije Nego wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:20:57 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>
> W3C validator issues a warning:
> Line : 150 (Level : 2) You have some absolute and relative lengths in
> padding. This is not a robust style sheet.
>
>
> No, you can check at http://bruno-s.net
> at line 150 you'd find
> margin: 0 10% 0 0;

I see--I missed that it was a warning rather than a validation error. So
it's valid, and now they've built in a suggestion-maker too, which is
useful in the same way that Microsoft Word's grammar check is
useful--sometimes it's right.

>
>
> It seams that w3c reads 0 as px in this combination. I find it strange.
> When I change
> margin: 0 10% 0 0;
> to
> margin: 0% 10% 0% %0;
> warning dissapears.

OK, it's just being dumb. If it's going to suggest that the numbers be
all absolute or all relative (and I'm not sure I see the rationale for
that), it needs to recognize 0 as both absolute and relative).

Nije Nego

2006-08-10, 6:39 pm

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:19:39 -0700, Jim Moe wrote:

> Nije Nego wrote:
> The validator apparently does not test for zero values when it scans for
> uniform length units. You could send a query to the W3C asking about this
> (email link at bottom of Validation page).

That would most certainly be a vaste of time.

> BTW: The spelling on the site is rather poor, for example, "Tablelles"
> should be "Table-less."

Using google Tableless (2.660.000) wins over Table-less (2.570.000).

> Is English is a second language?

I shall read your question as a positive. I thought it would be more
obvious.

> I do not, for instance, understand what
> "...(recently trough Netvibes ..." means.

Misspelled - should be (already is) "... through Netvibes ..." which is my
curent home page.

--
buy, bought, bye

Nije Nego

2006-08-10, 6:39 pm

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:03:36 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

> If it's going to suggest that the numbers be
> all absolute or all relative (and I'm not sure I see the rationale for
> that),

It is not sugessting anything for the numbers, it is using pt, px, (as
absolute) and %, em (as relative).

0 (without units) should be neutral (disregarded from validation).

--
buy, bought, bye

Jukka K. Korpela

2006-08-10, 6:39 pm

Nije Nego" <"nije\"nego <"nije\"nego"@net.hr> scripsit:

>
> That would most certainly be a vaste of time.

So you think it would more futile to send your proposal to the announced
feedback address of the W3C than to post a question on it to a Usenet group?
Maybe someone at the W3C will do something if you mail them, maybe not; but
at least you would have made a real try.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Nije Nego

2006-08-10, 6:39 pm

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:22:53 +0300, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> Nije Nego" <"nije\"nego <"nije\"nego"@net.hr> scripsit:
>
>
> So you think it would more futile to send your proposal to the announced
> feedback address of the W3C than to post a question on it to a Usenet group?
> Maybe someone at the W3C will do something if you mail them, maybe not; but
> at least you would have made a real try.

I find usenet much more helpfull, even in a read only mode, since there is
more knowledge here there anywhere else.
Yours included.

--
buy, bought, bye

Toby Inkster

2006-08-10, 10:45 pm

Nije Nego wrote:
> Jim Moe wrote:
>
>
> Using google Tableless (2.660.000) wins over Table-less (2.570.000).

But only 224 for "Tablelles".

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Nije Nego

2006-08-11, 6:38 pm

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:27:01 +0100, Toby Inkster wrote:

> Nije Nego wrote:
>
> But only 224 for "Tablelles".

Noted and changed. Thanks.

--
buy, bought, bye