Posted by Neredbojias on 02/24/06 20:34

With neither quill nor qualm, Jukka K. Korpela quothed:

> Neredbojias <invalid@neredbojias.com> wrote:
>
> > If you specify a color without a background-color or vice versa on
> > any element, the validator will give a warning.
>
> The CSS checker, misleadingly named "CSS Validator", indeed issues a
> useful warning.
>
> > In some cases it's ridiculous (-not all,)
>
> No it isn't. The ridiculous part is that authors complain about the
> useful warning with outbursts that clearly demonstrate why the warning
> is useful and almost always points at a design mistake: authors do not
> understand the cascade.

Suppose I have many lines of white text and decide to span one word to
change its color to yellow. Do I need to state a background? I think
not.

> > but the validator is the validator...
>
> No it isn't.

Well... It purports to be a validator, is from the w3c, and is
internationally recognized, so despite its errors I think it could be
legitimately called a "validator" but I don't necessarily disagree with
the import of your statement.

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

[Back to original message]