Posted by dorayme on 06/08/06 22:21

In article <r54h82t23g7o7n06s3n6kas4jvp8t4deaj@4ax.com>,
Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko@pcchip.hr> wrote:

> 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)?
>

Try http://tinyurl.com/r8ekp. It is part of the thread on a
question called "Question about CSS validation" and it was
originally asked by a person called "Vlatko Juric-Kokic" on a
newsgroup called "alt.html"

> >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.
>

Read the posts you missed. And what is this about the task of a
Validator? If a Validator was walking along and your kid fell
into a river and you could not swim and it started to dive into
the water to save the poor child, would you try to stop it: "Hoy!
That is the job for a life-saver not a CSS Validator". I don't
think so! You would simply be grateful and accept its help. Why?
Because you would understand the importance of what it is doing
in its "off duty" way. In the case of the transparent business
you don't understand the significance because you have not homed
into the secret heart of it all: Dingley Bingley and Lovely
Flavell.

Pill time now, got to rush.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]