Posted by Vlatko Juric-Kokic on 06/08/06 22:00

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 06:49:04 +1000, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>In article <mqgg82502u4lt61afrneki44vta9um746g@4ax.com>,
> Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko@pcchip.hr> wrote:
>
>> Furthermore, background-color: transparent is among the valid pieces
>> of CSS listed for my style sheet. How about that for inconsistency?
>
>Perhaps you had not read Dingley and Flavell before saying this?

No, I don't think I have. Could you point me to the text(s)?

>It is valid but it is not inconsistent with it being a really or
>slightly questionable idea when combined with a specification for
>text colouring.

Okay, yes, I can see that, if you mean what I think you mean. Still,
if I defined a basic background colour in body (and used transparent
background for everything above it), I don't think that somebody's
settings would override that and still use my value for "color", thus
rendering the page unreadable. If I _hadn't_ specified an underlying
background, that would be another matter.

I don't think that a validator's task is to examine questionable
design ideas. If something is valid, it's valid. Also, if a validator
cannot see whether there's a basic underlying colour, it cannot say
whether "transparent" on a div (or a class or an id) is questionable
or not.


vlatko

[Back to original message]