On 8/21/10 9:43 AM, Wesley Acheson wrote:
> I see what you mean your using the vendor specific extensions to css. You
> can't continue with the valid CSS icon, I'm afraid. Though I personally
> don't think theres a problem with using these extensions.
>
> Wesley
>
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Nestor Augusto Tous Maya<
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
[...]
>> 7 validation errors appear and it's assumed to be due to the process of
>> progressive improvement.
>>
>> Can I continue with valid CSS icon, although there are validation errors?,
>> Arguing that progressive improvement.
>>
---
Personally, I think that using the W3C icon is asking for trouble. Most
folks don't know and don't care what it means. Mean-spirited folks like
me are tempted to use it in order to gloat over the errors...
My own take on validation is that it's an essential tool, just as is a
spell-checker. But not all flagged errors are in fact errors-- i don't
believe that vendor extensions should be flagged. (But that's a personal
opinion.)
A British spell-checker will tell me that the CSS 'color' property is
misspelled. Do I change the spelling? I think not.
FWIW I do *not* hide IE-specific rules in conditional comments, but
deliberately use filters ("hacks") to target older IE. Why? So that when
a site is maintained, the validator reminds the developer to pull rules
that are no longer needed. The immediate benefit is that no rules are
omitted from validation--surely a plus?
Cordially,
David.
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [[email protected]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
