Robust CSS

Discussion in 'HTML' started by dorayme, Jun 20, 2006.

  1. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    Line : 124 (Level : 2) You have some absolute and relative
    lengths in padding. This is not a robust style sheet.

    I got above from http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator for:

    padding: 0 0 0 1%;

    I leave the 4 "values" as I work to try this and that as a
    convenience, I realise padding:0 and/or padding-left:1% would do
    too (though this gets a "warning" of a different kind not the
    subject of this post, though if you want to comment, feel free -
    I do this a lot too as it is so convenient and ignore the warning)

    I was surprised at 0 0 0 1% being able to confuse any browser -
    how could it happen? What would be a case where 0 as relative
    would make a difference to 0 as absolute? Or this warning not
    very good in that it does not take account of the special case of
    zero? Perhaps that is it?

    1% left margin div that is child of a body that defaults to
    roughly browser window is 1% of the width of body? Yes? So 0% is
    slap bang against the body left edge. But then so is 0px or 0cm
    for left margin.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jun 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dorayme

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme
    <> declared in alt.html:

    > I was surprised at 0 0 0 1% being able to confuse any browser -
    > how could it happen? What would be a case where 0 as relative
    > would make a difference to 0 as absolute? Or this warning not
    > very good in that it does not take account of the special case of
    > zero? Perhaps that is it?


    Does the warning go away if you make it 0% 0% 0% 1% ?

    --
    Mark Parnell
    My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
    http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Mark Parnell, Jun 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. dorayme

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Toby Inkster, Jun 20, 2006
    #3
  4. dorayme

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, dorayme
    <> vouchsafed:

    > Line : 124 (Level : 2) You have some absolute and relative
    > lengths in padding. This is not a robust style sheet.
    >
    > I got above from http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator for:
    >
    > padding: 0 0 0 1%;
    >
    > I leave the 4 "values" as I work to try this and that as a
    > convenience, I realise padding:0 and/or padding-left:1% would do
    > too (though this gets a "warning" of a different kind not the
    > subject of this post, though if you want to comment, feel free -
    > I do this a lot too as it is so convenient and ignore the warning)
    >
    > I was surprised at 0 0 0 1% being able to confuse any browser -
    > how could it happen? What would be a case where 0 as relative
    > would make a difference to 0 as absolute? Or this warning not
    > very good in that it does not take account of the special case of
    > zero? Perhaps that is it?
    >
    > 1% left margin div that is child of a body that defaults to
    > roughly browser window is 1% of the width of body? Yes? So 0% is
    > slap bang against the body left edge. But then so is 0px or 0cm
    > for left margin.


    The warning is completely bogus.

    Suppose I have an image I want 8px from container left but margined right
    at 1% of container width? The markup is:

    <img style="margin:0 1% 0 8px" src="da.gif" alt="">

    How does that make the page or ss "non-robust"? I think the w3c is a
    little too full of itself, or a little too full of something.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity has its limits.
    Neredbojias, Jun 20, 2006
    #4
  5. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <5n.co.uk>,
    Toby Inkster <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator

    >
    > This validator is a piece of crap. The W3C should really pull the plug on
    > it.


    Which one(s) do you use?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jun 20, 2006
    #5
  6. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <Xns97E8E0661143httpwwwneredbojiasco@208.49.80.251>,
    Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
    wrote:

    > How does that make the page or ss "non-robust"?


    I'm sure that was what I was asking?

    :)

    (Oy, MarkP... I lost your post by mistake, you won't accept
    Google replies because you have followed Blinkey Bill ... but I
    have not tried what you asked yet, I predict it will pass that
    one .... where they are all in %...)

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jun 20, 2006
    #6
  7. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
    <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> writing in
    news:Xns97E8E0661143httpwwwneredbojiasco@208.49.80.251:

    > The warning is completely bogus.
    >
    > Suppose I have an image I want 8px from container left but margined
    > right at 1% of container width? The markup is:
    >
    ><img style="margin:0 1% 0 8px" src="da.gif" alt="">
    >
    > How does that make the page or ss "non-robust"? I think the w3c is a
    > little too full of itself, or a little too full of something.
    >
    >


    It doesn't say it's wrong, it's a warning that it might break. IIRC,
    when tables were used for layout, it was an issue then, too, not mixing
    percentages and fixed sizes.

    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
    Adrienne Boswell, Jun 20, 2006
    #7
  8. dorayme

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Toby Inkster, Jun 20, 2006
    #8
  9. dorayme

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, Adrienne Boswell <>
    vouchsafed:

    >> The warning is completely bogus.
    >>
    >> Suppose I have an image I want 8px from container left but margined
    >> right at 1% of container width? The markup is:
    >>
    >><img style="margin:0 1% 0 8px" src="da.gif" alt="">
    >>
    >> How does that make the page or ss "non-robust"? I think the w3c is a
    >> little too full of itself, or a little too full of something.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > It doesn't say it's wrong, it's a warning that it might break. IIRC,
    > when tables were used for layout, it was an issue then, too, not mixing
    > percentages and fixed sizes.


    Well, perhaps there is some historical significance, but a page can break
    with any code/markup/styling that is misapplied, valid or not. Hopefully
    when I boldly mix my margin size values, I have a bit of an idea of what I
    am doing.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity has its limits.
    Neredbojias, Jun 20, 2006
    #9
  10. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <Xns97E84B7649D71arbpenyahoocom@69.28.186.121>,
    Adrienne Boswell <> wrote:

    > It doesn't say it's wrong, it's a warning that it might break. IIRC,
    > when tables were used for layout, it was an issue then, too, not mixing
    > percentages and fixed sizes.


    Yes, there is this general point. Fair enough as I noticed in my
    op... But when it is 0 0 0 1% what could be the problem. Just the
    validator not being fine grained enough?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jun 20, 2006
    #10
  11. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <5n.co.uk>,
    Toby Inkster <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > Toby Inkster <> wrote:
    > >> dorayme wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator
    > >>
    > >> This validator is a piece of crap. The W3C should really pull the plug on
    > >> it.

    > >
    > > Which one(s) do you use?

    >
    > For CSS I don't bother.


    I mostly forget but do find the warnings sometimes helpful.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jun 20, 2006
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Martin Smith

    robust iterator implementation

    Martin Smith, Jan 24, 2005, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,086
    msalters
    Jan 25, 2005
  2. Erik Max Francis
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    277
    Erik Max Francis
    Jul 9, 2003
  3. Erik Max Francis
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    285
    Erik Max Francis
    Aug 8, 2003
  4. Jane Austine
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,117
    Donn Cave
    Aug 16, 2003
  5. Erik Max Francis
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    271
    Erik Max Francis
    Sep 20, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page