css errors

[marian0810]

Possibly a bit of an ocd question but are there plans to fix any current css errors before the stable release?

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/vali ... Findex.php

FYI I just updated 3 testforums to RC4 and they all show the exact same errors.

[callumacrae]

There's nothing wrong with the CSS. There's a reason nobody uses the validators anymore

[Arty]

None of those errors are errors.

Error #1: validator sucks. pointer-events does exist. All modern browsers support it, even IE.
Error #2: validator sucks. There is absolutely nothing wrong with syntax.
The rest of errors: IE sucks. That's CSS for gradients in IE below 10.

Warnings: bunch of nonsense. It can't recognize vendor prefixes.

[BioLogIn]

validator sucks

With all due respect, validator just does what it was designed to do - checks pages for HTML standards conformance. So what you want to say is that W3C's HTML standards are outdated (and therefore suck). Which is also a very debatable topic.

[MattF]

With all due respect, validator just does what it was designed to do - checks pages for HTML standards conformance. So what you want to say is that W3C's HTML standards are outdated (and therefore suck). Which is also a very debatable topic.

Not even that though. It's just that the W3C spec for CSS3 is underdeveloped. It does not support vendor prefixes, for example, because strictly speaking they are not in the spec yet, but they are implemented by the browser vendors. There's a ton of legal CSS implemented by browsers already, that has not yet been added to the W3C's spec as a standard yet, so it's not that the W3C is outdated...it's pre-dated...it's very behind the times.

[callumacrae]

validator sucks

With all due respect, validator just does what it was designed to do - checks pages for HTML standards conformance. So what you want to say is that W3C's HTML standards are outdated (and therefore suck). Which is also a very debatable topic.

I think you're confusing HTML and CSS, because I never mentioned the HTML validator

The HTML validation is even worse, though. It just shouldn't have a validator. Web Components have a specification, yet cause the HTML validator to fail.

[BioLogIn]

Yeah, CCS standards, not HTML. My apologies for the typo. Doesn't change my meaning, though. I, personally, would rather rely on (outdated) standards, than to use some vendor-specific specs that could become obsolete in a few years. But I guess that's just me.

[hanakin]

Yeah, CCS standards, not HTML. My apologies for the typo. Doesn't change my meaning, though. I, personally, would rather rely on (outdated) standards, than to use some vendor-specific specs that could become obsolete in a few years. But I guess that's just me.

thats what build tools and processes are for. I never write anything except official syntax!

[callumacrae]

https://github.com/postcss/autoprefixer
https://leaverou.github.io/prefixfree/

autoprefixer is better, but prefixfree is prettier