Uncomprehensible css validation warnings

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Hendrik Maryns, Sep 22, 2006.

  1. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Hi all,

    I hope this is the right newsgroup for css questions, didn’t find
    another one.

    I am a bit puzzled by some warnings the css validator gives me.

    The validation of my style sheet can be found here:
    http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=tcl.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~hendrik/style/style.css

    I do not understand the warning: you will see that I did give a color
    for background in div.contentsBox (taken over from Wikipedia, btw).

    Anybody care to explain?

    (all other comments welcome too)

    H.
    - --
    Hendrik Maryns
    http://tcl.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~hendrik/
    ==================
    http://aouw.org
    Ask smart questions, get good answers:
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFFE6/2e+7xMGD3itQRAkSyAJ9OhcnGFhrHfapWzNmiuOaWfh6POgCaAybc
    PrjMrvA6QdqvUy/9N4YToO0=
    =eg6K
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Hendrik Maryns, Sep 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hendrik Maryns

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Hendrik Maryns wrote:

    > The validation of my style sheet can be found here:


    http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=tcl.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~hendrik/style/style.css

    > I do not understand the warning: you will see that I did give a color
    > for background in div.contentsBox (taken over from Wikipedia, btw).


    * You have no color with your background-color : div.contentsBox

    * div.contentsBox {
    [...]
    o background-color : #f9f9f9;
    }

    You nave no _color_ (foreground color) with your background color.
    What would happen if the user already had a default color of #f9f9f9 ?
    -- your new background would make the text disappear against it.

    In general, always set both colours together, using readable
    combinations.

    The W3C validator is a bit obsessed with this warning, which can be
    safely ignored so long as you are setting both colours somewhere
    reliable, then just changing one for small "highlights" within this.
     
    Andy Dingley, Sep 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Andy Dingley schreef:
    > Hendrik Maryns wrote:
    >
    >> The validation of my style sheet can be found here:

    >
    > http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=tcl.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~hendrik/style/style.css
    >
    >> I do not understand the warning: you will see that I did give a color
    >> for background in div.contentsBox (taken over from Wikipedia, btw).

    >
    > * You have no color with your background-color : div.contentsBox
    >
    > * div.contentsBox {
    > [...]
    > o background-color : #f9f9f9;
    > }
    >
    > You nave no _color_ (foreground color) with your background color.
    > What would happen if the user already had a default color of #f9f9f9 ?
    > -- your new background would make the text disappear against it.
    >
    > In general, always set both colours together, using readable
    > combinations.
    >
    > The W3C validator is a bit obsessed with this warning, which can be
    > safely ignored so long as you are setting both colours somewhere
    > reliable, then just changing one for small "highlights" within this.


    I see, thanks. IOW, I can safely ignore it here. Hm, or not: I didn’t
    explicitly define link colors...

    H.
    - --
    Hendrik Maryns
    http://tcl.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~hendrik/
    ==================
    http://aouw.org
    Ask smart questions, get good answers:
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFFE7XCe+7xMGD3itQRAiseAJ9MydioqYWDv6GjwRR7343GTZaF7gCfcbyb
    M9x76Eo/meXiuek/PlZy5yU=
    =I12b
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Hendrik Maryns, Sep 22, 2006
    #3
  4. Andy Dingley wrote:

    > The W3C validator is a bit obsessed with this warning,


    Isn't it a bit early in the morning for anthropomorphism?

    > which can be safely ignored so long as you are setting both colours somewhere
    > reliable, then just changing one for small "highlights" within this.


    "Somewhere reliable" meaning "in the same block", since you can't know
    how your stylesheet is going to interact with browser and (more
    especially) user stylesheets.
     
    David Dorward, Sep 22, 2006
    #4
  5. Hendrik Maryns wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


    Don't be ridiculous. This is Usenet.

    > I see, thanks.


    No, you don't. You indicated lack of comprehensive reading by your
    comprehensive quotation of the article you are nominally commenting on.

    > IOW, I can safely ignore it here.


    If you are going to ignore messages that you don't understand even after
    having them explained to you, why do you use the "validator" in the first
    place?

    Well, Andy's explanation wasn't quite correct, but it surely contained an
    important "if", which you most probably ignored.

    Start from the "CSS validator" FAQ. It takes a few clicks to find it, but
    here's the direct URL: http://www.websitedev.de/css/validator-faq

    If problems remain, try reading the archives of
    comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets for longer explanations. Using
    some key phrase from the error message might be a good starting point when
    using Google Groups.

    > iD8DBQFFE7XCe+7xMGD3itQRAiseAJ9MydioqYWDv6GjwRR7343GTZaF7gCfcbyb


    Indeed.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Sep 22, 2006
    #5
  6. Hendrik Maryns

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Hendrik Maryns wrote:
    >
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    >
    > Don't be ridiculous. This is Usenet.


    Usenet is a medium where it's often reasonably easy to forge somebody's
    identify. A PGP signature can be used to verify your identity.

    In this case, it's probably not of particular importance though, as he
    would likely have been given the same CSS advice whether or not we were
    able to firmly establish who he is.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Sep 23, 2006
    #6
  7. Toby Inkster wrote:

    > Usenet is a medium where it's often reasonably easy to forge
    > somebody's identify.


    So is the Real World (TM). Sending a signed paper with someone else's name
    under it is extremely simple.

    > A PGP signature can be used to verify your identity.


    That _is_ just ridiculous on Usenet. Nobody ever checks the PGP signature,
    they are write-only nonsense on Usenet. If you wanted to check someone's PGP
    signature, would you _really_ rely on the result? Why? The signature alone
    does not prove anyone's identity the least.

    Indirectly, using a PGP signature on Usenet tells that the poster is a PGP
    enthusiast who does not know Usenet or does not care about how Usenet works.
    Therefore, it may act as a useful warning signal indeed, so we should expect
    the poster to be FAQ challenged, too, among other things.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Sep 23, 2006
    #7
  8. Jukka K. Korpela schreef:
    > Hendrik Maryns wrote:
    >
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    >
    > Don't be ridiculous. This is Usenet.


    Hm, I read you other post with objections against PGP on Usenet, and am
    still very in doubt whether I agree. But I am happy to click on the
    little pen in the lower right border for you.

    As of that I am ripe for the FAQ, indeed, for HTML and CSS I am, but
    please do not tell me I do not know Usenet.

    >> I see, thanks.

    >
    > No, you don't. You indicated lack of comprehensive reading by your
    > comprehensive quotation of the article you are nominally commenting on.


    Why oh why do people always have to start fighting about this Usenet
    stuff like cutting posts, etc. I do not like top-posting myself, and
    may be caught commenting on it, but I like to include long citations.

    >> IOW, I can safely ignore it here.

    >
    > If you are going to ignore messages that you don't understand even after
    > having them explained to you, why do you use the "validator" in the
    > first place?
    >
    > Well, Andy's explanation wasn't quite correct, but it surely contained
    > an important "if", which you most probably ignored.


    No, I didn’t really understand it, and concluded from the body of the
    explanation that I could ignore it. Others have pointed me out that
    that is not a good idea.

    > Start from the "CSS validator" FAQ. It takes a few clicks to find it,
    > but here's the direct URL: http://www.websitedev.de/css/validator-faq


    Thanks.

    > If problems remain, try reading the archives of
    > comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets


    That was the newsgroup I was looking for! The naming is logical, but I
    expected the letters css in it.

    for longer explanations.
    > Using some key phrase from the error message might be a good starting
    > point when using Google Groups.


    I’ll remember that.

    H.
    --
    Hendrik Maryns
    http://tcl.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~hendrik/
    ==================
    http://aouw.org
    Ask smart questions, get good answers:
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
     
    Hendrik Maryns, Sep 25, 2006
    #8
    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. Colin Mackay
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,695
    Colin Mackay
    Jun 25, 2003
  2. Libs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,504
  3. Colin Basterfield

    Web form validation vs object validation

    Colin Basterfield, Nov 28, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    429
    Tommy
    Nov 29, 2003
  4. Matt
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    4,110
    Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu
    Jan 30, 2004
  5. Ted Sung
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    317
    Sherm Pendley
    Aug 30, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page