#1 2008-05-09 20:59:07
- SoraCross
- Member
- Registered: 2007-02-09
- Posts: 136
- I've been thanked 0 times.
-
Help with two CSS validation errors please!
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/vali … FForums%2F
I got two errors left, but I don't understand them at all. Can someone tell me what they mean and how to fix them?
SoraCross Development
"A website dedicated to bringing you high quality games and web designs."
[Review]
Offline
#2 2008-05-10 09:17:08
- ColoEagle
- Administrator
- From: Colorado, USA
- Registered: 2006-02-15
- Posts: 2125
- I've been thanked 86 times.
-
Re: Help with two CSS validation errors please!
Not sure about the first one, but with the second one you are missing the slash that needs to be in front of the asterisk for the comment line.
Also, not a biggy, but will keep things consistent you need to remove the space after the th on line 62.
/* By default (td, body..) use verdana in 000000. */
body, td, th , tr
Correct these two things and check validation again.
The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible
Attention designers and webmasters - "The Beauty of CSS"
Valid Web Designs tutorials on HTML, XHTML and CSS
Home Security Systems
Offline
#3 2008-05-10 14:26:49
- aknet47
- Member
- From: vienna
- Registered: 2006-09-14
- Posts: 234
- I've been thanked 1 times.
-
Re: Help with two CSS validation errors please!
ColoEagle wrote:
Not sure about the first one, but with the second one you are missing the slash that needs to be in front of the asterisk for the comment line.
Also, not a biggy, but will keep things consistent you need to remove the space after the th on line 62.
/* By default (td, body..) use verdana in 000000. */
body, td, th , tr
Correct these two things and check validation again.
like ColoEagle said, the slash should fix one error.
The other error has been triggered by the comma at the end of your selector-declaration.
Code: css
.titlebg, tr.titlebg th, tr.titlebg td, <-- bad comma :)
{
color: #000000;
font-style: normal;
have a nice weekned!!
Last edited by aknet47 (2008-05-10 14:43:54)
I´ve got a blog
Offline
#4 2008-05-10 15:03:08
- Northie
- Moderator
- From: Yorkshire, UK
- Registered: 2006-08-19
- Posts: 2611
- I've been thanked 63 times.
-
Re: Help with two CSS validation errors please!
Validating CSS for the sake of having valid code is unprofitable
Using non-standard CSS is vital for getting your sites to display correctly in modern browsers, which do not follow the entire CSS specification and interpret the spec differently
Now taking free-lance inquiries; Please contact me for more details
Internet Marketing Books
Promote Yourself on Site Reference!
Offline
#5 2008-05-10 15:52:48
- SoraCross
- Member
- Registered: 2007-02-09
- Posts: 136
- I've been thanked 0 times.
-
Re: Help with two CSS validation errors please!
Thank you all for your help. The errors have been fixed.
Northie wrote:
Validating CSS for the sake of having valid code is unprofitable
Using non-standard CSS is vital for getting your sites to display correctly in modern browsers, which do not follow the entire CSS specification and interpret the spec differently
Okay, this would be a good point except for the fact that the errors I'm fixing are actual coding errors. I could understand this if I had to change the look of my forum, but in the scope of this topic you're suggesting that I leave my broken comments alone?
Anyway, the errors are gone, and my CSS is validated. I would love to see you create your own topic about if validation is good, bad, or worth it though.
Sorry if I've offended you.
SoraCross Development
"A website dedicated to bringing you high quality games and web designs."
[Review]
Offline
#6 2008-05-13 04:56:40
- griffinsbridge
- Member
- From: York, England
- Registered: 2005-11-04
- Posts: 595
- I've been thanked 11 times.
-
Re: Help with two CSS validation errors please!
oooooohhhhhh, a "validation slap fight"!!
Haven't seen one of those for a while on here, not since we lost the Sergeant!!
But, both of you have very very good and valid points to make.
1. Northie: Yes, validation for validations sake is a pi**ant waste of time that can eat up whole days and drive you nuts only to create either more errors elsewhere or to totally wreck what worked well in the first place.
2. SoraCross: Yes, Validating to find ACTUAL errors (as in coding errors) which break pages is a very good idea. Whenever I'm struggling to get something right, or have a problem with a rendered page, I always go straight to the validaters for clues. Which, saves me alot of time in the long run.
Referees decision:
I think Northie was trying to say that validating to find coding errors (ie, the errors SoraCross now has fixed) is a good thing, but going too far into getting valid W3 code is a waste of resources.
I think SoraCross wasn't actually bothered about full W3 valid code, just bothered about fixing coding errors that were breaking pages.
therefore:
Score Draw.
Everyones a winner!
So many pages, so little time.
Offline
| Never |
- Sponsored Results
|
|