View Single Post
Old 03-08-2015, 03:22 PM   #5
dgatwood
Curmudgeon
dgatwood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dgatwood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dgatwood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dgatwood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dgatwood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dgatwood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dgatwood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dgatwood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dgatwood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dgatwood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dgatwood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
dgatwood's Avatar
 
Posts: 629
Karma: 1623086
Join Date: Jan 2012
Device: iPad, iPhone, Nook Simple Touch
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf View Post
But, if you are doing this for an eBook you plan on selling, you might have to remove your webkit commands in order to get it to validate.
The W3C Validator doesn't care much about CSS as far as I can tell. You can specify pretty much any random crap as long as it follows the rules for CSS syntax structure, and it won't complain. Same goes for iTunes Producer's validator. I've had no trouble with that CSS in submissions to Apple, Amazon KDP, B&N, Kobo, Google, Smashwords Direct, Draft2Digtal, etc. Besides, vendor prefixes in any proper validator should be ignored because they can't (by design) ever conflict with legal CSS property names in the standard namespace.

I mean if you want it to get a clean bill of health without any warnings from something marginally abusive like the CSS linter, then maybe, but doing that is usually incompatible with getting usable results anyway. (For example, overqualifying selectors is often required if the reader's UA stylesheet is abusive/evil.)
dgatwood is offline   Reply With Quote