Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxaris
Therefore the validation is correct in that it is labeled as an error. However, checking against CSS 3.0 is worse, since that contains a lot of stuff that isn't part of the ePUB standard.
|
Given the "gracefully degrade" feature of CSS, that's arguable.
First, @font-face is not an error in ePub, even if it's not supported by CSS 2.1.
Second, you can use whatever CSS properties you want in your ePub, even invent new ones like "blinking-font", "text-decoration: super-wavy-fancy-line", and that's still not an error, they will simply be ignored by any compliant reader. Using CSS3 properties is not forbidden, so I don't think it wouldn't be "worse" to check against CSS3; after all rendering in actual readers is going to be hit-and-miss anyway.
My opinion is that the W3C validater should not mark as errors the usage of unsupported properties (like @font-face in CSS 2.1), but rather as warnings. And then we'd need a validator that recognizes the CSS subset defined for ePub.