Validating http://d-theme.com/nista.

This version passes the W3C check for XHTML 1.0 Strict and fails the precise TV check with the following one error. The name and id attributes must have the same value within the same element.
<a name="top" id="navigation-top"></a>

The W3C CSS 2.1 validation produces the following errors.
URI : http://d-theme.com/sites/all/themes/nista/layout.css?s
287 #header, #content, #navbar, #sidebar-left, #sidebar-right, #footer, #closure-blocks Property word-wrap doesn't exist : break-word
298 #page Property overflow-y doesn't exist in CSS level 2.1 but exists in [css3] : hidden
URI : http://d-theme.com/sites/all/themes/nista/nista.css?s
351 .node-unpublished div.unpublished, .comment-unpublished div.unpublished Property word-wrap doesn't exist : break-word
URI : http://d-theme.com/sites/all/themes/nista/print.css?s
58 #page Property overflow-y doesn't exist in CSS level 2.1 but exists in [css3] : visible

The W3C CSS 2.1 validation produces the following errors.

URI : http://d-theme.com/sites/all/themes/nista/layout.css?s
287 #header, #content, #navbar, #sidebar-left, #sidebar-right, #footer, #closure-blocks Property word-wrap doesn't exist : break-word
URI : http://d-theme.com/sites/all/themes/nista/nista.css?s
351 .node-unpublished div.unpublished, .comment-unpublished div.unpublished Property word-wrap doesn't exist : break-word

Comments

peterx’s picture

peterx commented
Version: 6.x-4.1 » 6.x-4.2
tonyn’s picture

tonyn commented
Project: Nista » Zen
Version: 6.x-4.2 » 6.x-1.0

These CSS files are derived from Zen's STARTERKIT.

I am going to forward this to Zen.

seutje’s picture

seutje commented
Component: Code » layout.css

is this a call to remove progressive enhancement?

both these properties exist in the CSS 3 spec and are already picked up by some browsers

seems silly to force strict CSS 2.1 compliance when CSS 3 is right around the corner

besides, that's the beauty of CSS, unrecognized properties are automatically ignored without any repercussions (as long as the structure is correct ofc)

seutje’s picture

seutje commented
Component: layout.css » CSS/HTML Markup

hm, the old code component seems to be gone, I'll put it under CSS/HTML Markup

peterx’s picture

peterx commented

CSS 3 is good so long as you tell potential users what you target. Users can then select themes based on the browsers and screen readers used by their visitors. D-theme tags themes by CSS version. If your documentation states you target CSS 3, not CSS 2.1, D-theme will validate against CSS 3 and not CSS 2.1. Drupal.org could use CSS 3 and some other tags for simplifying selection from their theme list.

seutje’s picture

seutje commented

so would that mean no theme is ever allowed to use vendor-prefixed properties? (gg D7 core themes)

that would be very, very sad.

looking through the documentation, I can't find it stating strict CSS2.1 compliance, so why not assume CSS1 while ur at it?
because 2.1 is the current standard? I beg to differ

I suppose we could tag it, but if we tag it with CSS3, I think ppl will be expecting more than just word-wrap. I know I would

johnalbin’s picture

johnalbin
they/他
Primary language English
Location Taipei, Taiwan
commented
Component: CSS/HTML Markup » layout.css
Status: Active » Closed (won't fix)

The validator is not perfect. It flags stuff that is perfectly valid to write. Validation should not be a goal; it should be a tool we use to ensure accessibility, usability, etc.