Validation Issues

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

Re: Validation Issues

On 24 Aug 2004 07:10:13 -0700, downview@gmail. com (downview) wrote:
[color=blue]
>Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy .com> wrote in message news:<87nli09sf 447elf6cea5jd2g l39q1cnvfb@4ax. com>...[color=green]
>> On 23 Aug 2004 22:18:15 -0700, downview@gmail. com (downview) wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >Sorry to be so ambiguous, but that's exactly the message.
>> >
>> >And I quote:
>> > To work as intended, your CSS style sheet needs a correct document
>> >parse tree. This means you should use valid HTML.
>> >
>> > ERRORS
>> > * Line: 0
>> > Parse Error - :
>> >______________ _______________ _________[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >...I'm thinking perhaps there is a bug[/color]
>> A far fetched idea in your situation...
>>[color=darkred]
>> >but here's the CSS markup to ponder as you requested:
>> >
>> > * body {
>> > o background-image : url(images/side_background .jpg);[/color][/color][/color]
[...]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Maybe this is just a case of a usenaut that has not read Q&A.6 in the
>> newly revised newsgroup FAQ?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Getting a little off topic here, but I'll give a couple answers. I'm
>not supplying the URI because this site is a password-protected page
>that I wrote and maintain for my wife....[/color]

I can respect that, but surely you do have your CSS file as an external
resource linked to your main document?

You can give us the URL for your CSS resource without compromising the
integrity of your web page(s).
[color=blue]
>...Also, this validation is for the CSS markup alone and that, in its
>complete, natural form has been supplied.[/color]

Nope, you have not supplied us here with exactly the same as you did
send to the CSS "validator" , if your CSS is external to your web pages.

I really should not guess, but things like a faulty server stated
character encoding, bogus "invisible" characters at the start of your
CSS and the likes may be liable to trip a checkup system. At least that
seems to be plausible given the error report for "line 0".

--
Rex

[BenOne©]

Re: Validation Issues

downview wrote:
[color=blue]
> When I attempt to validate my style sheet using the w3c validator, it
> tells me that I need a correct document parse tree. The confusing
> thing is my page validates as XHTML Transitional 1.0. Does anyone have
> any idea what would cause this to happen? Here's the actual message
> from the w3c validator:
>
> Line: 0
>
> Parse Error - :
>
>
> Mahalo for you help!
>
> --a down view[/color]

Is the CSS specified in the html header (HEAD tag), or is it in a separate file?
If it's in the html header, do you have a DOCTYPE and something similar to the
following:
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="Text/html; Charset=ISO-8859-1;"

I found they were the things I was missing when I was getting errors about the
parse tree.

The best way to get help in this newsgroup is to supply a URL so that people can
see your code and try running it through the validators themselves if they want.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[Neal]

Re: Validation Issues

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:13:12 GMT, Andrew Thompson <SeeMySites@www .invalid>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> Let us assume the number of CSS definitions is
> *ridiculously* large, for my example I choose
> 1,000,000.
>
> If you were to divide the sheet in half, check
> each half alternately and pursue the half with
> errors, you can actually narrow the error down
> to the single CSS definition that is problematic
> in just 20 checks*.[/color]

providing, of course, the problem is not one style rule but a combination,
some in one half, some in the other.

[downview]

Re: Validation Issues

BenOne© <nosp@m.thanks. mate> wrote in message news:<kaeggc.je 4.ln@192.168.11 .2>...[color=blue]
> downview wrote:
>[color=green]
> > When I attempt to validate my style sheet using the w3c validator, it
> > tells me that I need a correct document parse tree. The confusing
> > thing is my page validates as XHTML Transitional 1.0. Does anyone have
> > any idea what would cause this to happen? Here's the actual message
> > from the w3c validator:
> >
> > Line: 0
> >
> > Parse Error - :
> >
> >
> > Mahalo for you help!
> >
> > --a down view[/color]
>
> Is the CSS specified in the html header (HEAD tag), or is it in a separate file?
> If it's in the html header, do you have a DOCTYPE and something similar to the
> following:
> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="Text/html; Charset=ISO-8859-1;"
>
> I found they were the things I was missing when I was getting errors about the
> parse tree.[/color]


[color=blue]
>
> The best way to get help in this newsgroup is to supply a URL so that people can
> see your code and try running it through the validators themselves if they want.[/color]


Thanks again Harlan. I found that same rule after doing some research
in the CSS O'Reilly book. It's the small things that kill.

That's a good point also, Andrew...but dear Lord, 100,000 entries? I
can't imagine the server load.... *grin*

PS. I've received a lot of "tips" on how to use USENET, but they keep
coming from people that are violating one of the basics: read an
entire thread to make sure your comments are relevant before posting.
Otherwise, you're wasting valuable time that could be spent elsewhere.

I hereby call this thread finished. Thanks for reading and helping.

[Brian]

Re: Validation Issues

downview wrote:
[color=blue]
> PS. I've received a lot of "tips" on how to use USENET, but they keep
> coming from people that are violating one of the basics: read an
> entire thread to make sure your comments are relevant before posting.[/color]

Sure. But note that "relevant" does not necessarily mean "useful to the
person who asked a question".
[color=blue]
> I hereby call this thread finished.[/color]

Where did you get the idea that you can declare a thread finished? This
is an open discussion forum. If you want to stop playing, then go home,
but I'm afraid you cannot take your ball with you.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Neal]

Re: Validation Issues

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:13:44 -0400, Brian
<usenet3@juliet remblay.com.inv alid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> downview wrote:[color=green]
>> I hereby call this thread finished.[/color]
>
> Where did you get the idea that you can declare a thread finished?[/color]

Perhaps he invented the internet?

Maybe we could discuss whether the CSS validator is or isn't a validator
or a linter, just to prove him wrong...

[Andrew Thompson]

Re: Validation Issues

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:04:38 -0400, Neal wrote:[color=blue]
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:13:12 GMT, Andrew Thompson wrote:[/color]

(1,000,000 CSS definitions)[color=blue][color=green]
>> .. you can actually narrow the error down
>> to the single CSS definition that is problematic
>> in just 20 checks*.[/color]
>
> providing, of course, the problem is not one style rule but a combination,
> some in one half, some in the other.[/color]

I can agree that perfectly valid CSS definitions
can combine in unpredictable and seemingly chaotic
ways, but I was referring specifically to invalid CSS
and/or CSS parse errors.

Even if there are 5 separate (invalid CSS) errors,
this 'halving' technique would allow you to identify
each of them quickly..

For the problems caused by *combinations* of
*valid* CSS rules, the above technique is most
likely to propound confusion, rather than
clarify anything.

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: Validation Issues

Quoth the raven downview:

Late to the party, I'll submit that all font names with spaces must be
surrounded by quotes.
[color=blue]
> h2
> {font-family: Arial Bold, sans-serif;[/color]

font-family: "Arial Bold", sans-serif;
[color=blue]
> a: {
> font-family: Trebuchet MS,sans-serif;[/color]

Several occurrences of "Trebuchet MS".
[color=blue]
> #main a {
> font-family: Times New Roman,sans-serif;[/color]

Ditto TNR. You get the idea now.

You should also be able to use <div>s to style areas and only use the
font properties for the <div> instead of repeated listing.

Numerous other little inconsistencies in there...

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.