CSS Validator
Neal
On jigsaw.w3.org, when you've validated your CSS they suggest you put an
icon on your page. The thing is, the img tag isn't XHTML compliant!
<p>
<a href="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/">
<img ...
alt="Valid CSS!">
</a>
</p>
It of course should be
<img ...
alt="Valid CSS!" />
to work in all environments. Then again, the argument could be made that you
ought to be able to pick up on this if you're coding to XHTML, but I think
that's a misguided point of view. Soon everyone's going to be learning it
that way.
I don't plan to subscribe for this one point, but perhaps someone who does
would be interested in passing this along.
David Dorward
> Just noticed something peculiar. Thought I'd share.
>
> On jigsaw.w3.org, when you've validated your CSS they suggest you put an
> icon on your page. The thing is, the img tag isn't XHTML compliant!
> It of course should be
>
> <img ...
> alt="Valid CSS!" />
Which, while valid in HTML, is supposed to display the > character - i.e. it
means the same as: <img ... alt="Valid CSS!">>
--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Jukka K. Korpela
> On jigsaw.w3.org, when you've validated your CSS they suggest you
> put an icon on your page.
That's bad advice. Those icons are worse than useless. Arguments:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html#icon
(which is about "Valid HTML!" icons, but exactly the same applies,
actually even stronger, since CSS is less widely known than HTML
to the general public).
> The thing is, the img tag isn't XHTML compliant!
Excuse me while I yawn.
> It of course should be
>
> <img ...
> alt="Valid CSS!" />
>
> to work in all environments.
Nonsense. There is not a single browser that cannot handle the tag
without the slash.
> Then again, the argument could be made
> that you ought to be able to pick up on this if you're coding to
> XHTML,
Well, that goes without saying, doesn't it? And if you actually
understand what validity is, as it applies to HTML as (formally) an
SGML or XML application, then you surely understand that there is no
such thing as CSS validity, so this alone should have deterred you from
polluting your page with those icons.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
ICHwesen
> Well, that goes without saying, doesn't it? And if you actually
> understand what validity is, as it applies to HTML as (formally) an
> SGML or XML application, then you surely understand that there is no
> such thing as CSS validity, so this alone should have deterred you from
> polluting your page with those icons.
>
there may be no such thing as free lunch, but there definitely IS CSS
validity. Every programming language has it's rules as does every other
language. Some languages though are not interpreted strictly, that is:
even if you do not code according to the rules, the result may (!) be
the same. So, not only XML-applications can be validated, but every
other language can, including of course CSS.
So, before you go and teach others about validity, please feel free to
consult any basic programming handbook and look up the index for
"validation".
Greets
ICHwesen,
the teacher's teacher ;-)
Matthias Gutfeldt
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>
>> Well, that goes without saying, doesn't it? And if you actually
>> understand what validity is, as it applies to HTML as (formally) an
>> SGML or XML application, then you surely understand that there is no
>> such thing as CSS validity, so this alone should have deterred you
>> from polluting your page with those icons.
>>
> there may be no such thing as free lunch, but there definitely IS CSS
> validity.
Perhaps. But there is no CSS validity "as it applies to HTML as
(formally) an SGML or XML application".
Matthias
Jukka K. Korpela
> there may be no such thing as free lunch, but there definitely IS CSS
> validity. Every programming language has it's rules as does every other
> language.
If you think that CSS is a programming language, I'm not surprised at your
thorough confusion. Consider reading a primer on CSS. You can probably find
one via the FAQ.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/