|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 09/18/05 00:01
With neither quill nor qualm, Alan J. Flavell quothed:
>
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Dr Clue wrote:
>
> > A few months or so ago I picked up on scripts ceasing
> > to function in relation to assigning values which did not have
> > proper suffixes 'px' 'em' etc.
>
> The value zero is an exception. It needs -no- unit specification.
>
> > I'm just recovering from three years of hospitals and surgeries
> > so as I return to programming , I've had to wade through a lot of
> > this to bring my skills back up to date.
>
> Sorry to hear that.
>
> > My advice is that you simply get on with it and feed the beast
> > the 'px' or such that is wanted ,
>
> My counsel is to leave conforming CSS alone, if this is the only motive
> for changing it - in the event that the W3C CSS "validator" (an
> unfortunate choice of name - "checker" would be a safer choice) seems to
> be disagreeing with the specification, first look for some other cause
> (e.g wrong punctuation, presence of invisible bad character etc.), failing
> which, feel free to report a bug to them.
>
> No point in investing a lot of effort to overturn one's site which already
> conforms to specification and isn't provoking some known bug in browsers
> etc. - if they temporarily provoke a bug in a CSS syntax checker, then
> don't panic, check the specs and be happy. The fact that some software
> tools come from the W3C is no guarantee of perfection, you know.
Agree. It's the logical approach. I'll just wait for awhile (-what the
"while" will be, though, I dunno,) and if things don't change, proceed
along the lines Dr. Clue suggested. Still think it's pitiful.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|