valid html and css

dorayme · Feb 16, 2005

When I validate my css at http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator, I
can get "No error or warning found" but i am a bit puzzled by what the words
following mean:

"To work as intended, your CSS style sheet needs a correct document parse
tree. This means you should use valid HTML."

The css? This is not html? As for the html files that the css control, of
course they should be valid...? My css sheets are pretty plain getting
straight down to business with the tags:

body {

}

and so on. Should there be further headers and footers (in html there's
<head> and <body> and <html> and meta tags and stuff.

My sheets seem to work ok but need to get this really right...

Anyone?

dorayme

Steve Greenaway · Feb 16, 2005

Kermit the Frog stuck a mic in dorayme's face, who said:

When I validate my css at http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator, I
can get "No error or warning found" but i am a bit puzzled by what the words
following mean:

"To work as intended, your CSS style sheet needs a correct document parse
tree. This means you should use valid HTML."

The css? This is not html? As for the html files that the css control, of
course they should be valid...? My css sheets are pretty plain getting
straight down to business with the tags:

Don't sweat it. The CSS validator looks at your CSS file, and nothing
else. It has no idea which html documents on the world wide webby
are linking to it, but it still gives a friendly reminder to keep the
html docs in good shape.

dorayme · Feb 16, 2005

From: Steve Greenaway <[email protected]>
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Newsgroups: alt.html
Date: 16 Feb 2005 06:31:42 GMT
Subject: Re: valid html and css

Kermit the Frog stuck a mic in dorayme's face, who said:

Don't sweat it. The CSS validator looks at your CSS file, and nothing
else. It has no idea which html documents on the world wide webby
are linking to it, but it still gives a friendly reminder to keep the
html docs in good shape.

OK, thanks, Steve. So the interpretation is: "Make sure your html files are
good or your css won't have the effect you expect...". Not, "the css itself
needs some parse tree thingy to work..."

dorayme

Richard · Feb 17, 2005

When I validate my css at http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator,
I
can get "No error or warning found" but i am a bit puzzled by what the
words
following mean:

"To work as intended, your CSS style sheet needs a correct document
parse
tree. This means you should use valid HTML."

The css? This is not html? As for the html files that the css control,
of
course they should be valid...? My css sheets are pretty plain getting
straight down to business with the tags:

What they should say is, "To validate your html part use validator.w3.org."
Intstead of the BS $10 words like "parse tree".

If parse means to cut, then why would I want to cut down the tree?

Nik Coughin · Feb 17, 2005

Richard said:
What they should say is, "To validate your html part use
validator.w3.org." Intstead of the BS $10 words like "parse tree".

If parse means to cut, then why would I want to cut down the tree?

Well, it's a moot point really because parse does not mean "to cut".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing
http://www.pcwebopedia.com/TERM/P/parse.htm
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parse
http://www.answers.com/parse&r=67

Jukka K. Korpela · Feb 17, 2005

dorayme said:
When I validate my css at http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator,

then you aren't really using a validator, but a (useful) checker, which is
misleadingly called "CSS Validator".

I can get "No error or warning found" but i am a bit puzzled by what
the words following mean:

"To work as intended, your CSS style sheet needs a correct document
parse tree. This means you should use valid HTML."

They mean that the authors of the checker wanted to make some general
propaganda in favor of "valid HTML". It has nothing specific to do with
your HTML or SGML or XML document, if any.

The css? This is not html? As for the html files that the css control,
of course they should be valid...?

It wouldn't hurt. Whether markup errors really matter depends on the
browser. It is incorrect to give the impression that CSS could never work
with invalid markup. Unfortunately most HTML documents around are invalid -
but they may still work with CSS.

My css sheets are pretty plain
getting straight down to business with the tags:

body {

}

and so on.

So I guess you are using XML with "body" as the root element's name?
Nothing wrong with that, as long as you know what you are doing with XML
in the first place.

Should there be further headers and footers (in html there's
<head> and <body> and <html> and meta tags and stuff.

If you play with XML and CSS, then there is no particular reason to imitate
HTML syntax.

Your XML needs to be "well-formed" in order to be processed properly at
all. You could also make it valid, i.e. find or write a Document Type
Definition, stick to it, and declare using it. But validity is by no means
needed for making CSS work with CSS. Still less do you need to try to make
your XML valid HTML (i.e., XHTML), unless you want to make your document
work on HTML user agents, "browsers", in HTML mode (with default renderings
for many elements, etc.).

Stuck with html and css	25	Dec 14, 2022
Chrome not displaying uploaded HTML and CSS code	5	Nov 17, 2022
CSS: How can I stop overflow on the y-axis?	2	Dec 24, 2022
Working on mobile css menu with plenty of frustration!	2	Dec 29, 2022
CSS validator and Word pad	2	Feb 6, 2005
HTML Aligning social media icons	2	Dec 6, 2020
Valid HTML	15	Feb 1, 2007
XHTML - how extend/create ELEMENT body in my DTD?	0	Oct 29, 2019

valid html and css

dorayme

Steve Greenaway

dorayme

Richard

Nik Coughin

Jukka K. Korpela

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Latest Threads