Please upgrade here. These earlier versions are no longer being updated and have security issues.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

CSS validation with W3C validation service

edited October 2010 in Vanilla 2.0 - 2.8
I ran my forum through the W3C validator and it generated
(170+ errors for CSS3 profile)
(230+ errors for CSS2.1 profile)

WOW !!

Most were in, /applications/dashboard/design/style.css?v=2.0.11
although the voting plugin throws plenty too, /plugins/Voting/design/voting.css?v=2.0.11

Most were to do with Mozilla or Webkit specific properties which I assume are there to do with backwards compatibility for these browsers,
some are properties the Validator does not recognise

I've gone through them commenting the bits so that it almost completely passes so I have reference style sheets.
I'll soon, probably with the next release of Vanilla 2, start reporting any significant errors that need fixing or that are totally incomprehensible.

PERSONALLY: anyone who complains to me about formatting/rendering errors is immediately asked

"Are you using an UP TO DATE and STANDARDS COMPLIANT browser ? "

Most just update their browser and the problem goes away.
Anyone who mentions *IE* is treated as a BOZO !

(Ooh isn't that a good idea for an addon/plugin for someone to develop rather than having to sink all their posts or banning the culprits. bbPress does have a bozo function !! )

Anyone else is welcome to add CSS error reports here too !


  • Options
    1) in /applications/dashboard/design/style.css?v=2.0.11
    at about line 246 the "div.Messages ul" definition
    uses a "zoom 1" property this fails validation

    2) in /applications/dashboard/design/style.css?v=2.0.11
    at about line 2447 the "div.Border" container definition has some problems
    it generates a parse error
    is it meant to be background-image or background-repeat ?
  • Options
    LincLinc Detroit Admin
    Please report CSS bugs on GitHub, but I'd omit anything to do with vendor extensions. They're in the CSS spec so that'd be the validator goofing up.
Sign In or Register to comment.