This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The validator does not behave like expected. I uploaded a file and also checked the URL using the validator at http://validator.w3.org/. This reported my file, http://neonbikini.com/css_test/portfolio_5copy.html, as valid. Following is a snippet of the approved code, LINE 36-38: div#site_nav {position: absolute; bottom 0px;} Checking that the validator was not completely snafu, the following did report an error: div#site_nav {position: absolute; bottom sexy woman;} However, this file is not available at this time.
missing colon in the CSS code.
Exactly, the aalidator said the code was ok and missed the colon. Isn't the validator supposed to catch things like that? I'm just asking, I don't make the rules.
Ah, I see this is closed. Olivier, can I eamil all my css to you and ask you to check it?
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=875 does report an error (Line: 51 Context : div#site_nav Invalid number : bottom Parse Error - 0px) Granted, the "parse error" is not a very good error message, but I cannot reproduce the behavior you report (reporting as valid) Please provide more details to reproduce this behavior, or confirm that the report was erroneous.
You don't act right. What's hard about repeating this error? CNP=http://neonbikini.com/css_test/portfolio_5copy.html into the validator. It reports this as valid. But line 38, div#site_nav {position: absolute; bottom 0px;} is not valid css.
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fneonbikini.com% 2Fcss_test%2Fportfolio_5copy.html&usermedium=all prints out seven errors for http://www.portland.co.uk/404.esp
Comment #4 should have been: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator? uri=http%3A%2F%2Fneonbikini.8bit.co.uk%2Fcss_test%2Fportfolio_5copy.html&usermedium=all reports the error properly. This is what I tested. It appears that http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator? uri=http%3A%2F%2Fneonbikini.com%2Fcss_test%2Fportfolio_5copy.html&usermedium=all indeed does not report it, reports errors about a 404 page . Apologies for not understanding that *this* was the issue, your report(s) were rather confusing to me. Note also that your tone, as well as comments such as "Olivier, can I eamil all my css to you and ask you to check it?" are not appropriate. Being clear, helpful and polite in your bug reports helps. Anyway, trying to find out what's wrong with the redirect, which I assume is the cause of the validator's confusion, I could not find anything obviously wrong yet. Transaction as follows: ============================================ telnet neonbikini.com 80 Trying 216.98.141.250... Connected to wf3.dnsvr.com. Escape character is '^]'. GET /css_test/portfolio_5copy.html HTTP/1.1 Host: neonbikini.com User-Agent: Jigsaw/2.2.0 W3C_CSS_Validator_JFouffa/2.0 HTTP/1.1 302 Found Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:00:50 GMT Server: Apache Expires: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:01:04 GMT location: http://neonbikini.8bit.co.uk/css_test/portfolio_5copy.html Connection: close Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html X-Pad: avoid browser bug 0 ===================
Reading my original bug report and concluding I was misusing the report feature to have anyone correct my css code makes the resulting responses more clear. Then I agree the reply and subsequent closing of the bug would be totally appropriate. If I was trying to play anyone. That's not the case. If you feel mislead, I hope my subsequent post cleard up my question. Following the suggestion I tried it again with the same results: This Page Is Valid XHTML 1.1! I'm left to assume the validator can not detect errors in head stylesheets.
Re: Comment #8 I am confused again. "This Page Is Valid XHTML 1.1!" is output for the markup validator, while we are supposed to be talking about the CSS Validator. The Markup Validator does not, indeed, check embedded stylesheets.
You got it. I erroneously thought the validator checked both the embedded css and the xhtml markup. I was entirely unaware of the other validator. To recap: 1.) I checked the file in the validator, and noticed the css error {bottom 0px;}. 2.) I made a copy of the file and rechecked the validator with a gross error {bottom sexy woman;}. It returned an error. (NOTE, I have been unsuccessful to recreate this error.) 3.) I logged the bug http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=875. 4.) The comment made that my css had an error further supported my version of the bug report in 3. The correction was misleading because it missed the reason for the report: validating css and missed that I was using the xhtml validator to check css. I guess no good deed goes unpunished. I will add a last comment that the validator not checking embedded css is unexpected. This does not benefit newcomers in any way. While it is possible to separate style from markup, it is not required for CSS2. It is permissible to embed css in the head and in elements. Within what parameters can I expect the validator to operate? If a user agent can parse xhtml, I would fully expect the validator to do the same. It's ridiculous to imagine that the xhtml validator can not check embedded css. I hope to find a programming solution that is more sophisticated then creating a separate css file if only to check embedded css.
The CSS validator can check both inline and "external" CSS.