Posted by Neredbojias on 09/17/05 23:56

With neither quill nor qualm, Dr Clue quothed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
> > With neither quill nor qualm, Dr Clue quothed:
> >>Neredbojias wrote:
> >>>With neither quill nor qualm, Dr Clue quothed:
> >>>>Neredbojias wrote:
> >>>>>What's with the w3c css validator? All of a sudden it's giving errors
> >>>>>for "line-height:0;" It didn't before and I use that in virtually all
> >>>>>my pages.
> >>>>Em maybe a 'px' would make it happy
> >>>>line-height:0px;
> >>>Possibly, but it used to work the way I have it now.
> >>I'v seen a change in doctype require similar changes.
> >
> > But it isn't an error. Of course, if the w3c autocracy *says* it's an
> > error...
>
> Over time the validator has been slowly
> getting more rigorous in it's validation,
> and the browsers have been shifting too.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

Best of luck with your recovery.

> My advice is that you simply get on with it and feed the beast
> the 'px' or such that is wanted , thus paying *THIS* years dues, with
> full foreknowledge that they will require another payment in due course.

Yeah, ultimately that's the only choice. I wish I were a caveman;
civilization isn't all it's cracked-up to be.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

[Back to original message]