Thread: CSS validation uses wrong validator?
View Single Post
Old 03-15-2016, 02:46 AM   #11
bookman156
Addict
bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bookman156 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 368
Karma: 1000000
Join Date: Mar 2016
Device: none
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxaris View Post
Yes, there is. It is specified in the specifications of course. More specifically, it is here.
Thanks.

This underscores that CSS validation should be about whether the CSS file is syntactically correct, not about whether epubs do or do not support various cherry-picked parts of the CSS specification. If I use CSS that is too advanced for epub, I'll soon find out, but if I have missed off a semi-colon from my CSS or not enclosed a font-name in quote-marks I'd rather just discover that than try to second-guess which CSS spec best suits EPUB 2 or 3, when it is essentially a bit of a guessing game when perfectly good CSS for some reason doesn't make it in CSS 2.1 yet is given the thumbs up in the document you have linked to.
Last edited by bookman156; 03-15-2016 at 02:58 AM.
bookman156 is offline   Reply With Quote