CSS validation uses wrong validator?

[bookman156]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You'll notice that no one in this thread has claimed that EPUB2 "is based on" CSS 2.1. Rather that; where a single specification must be chosen for the inexact validation of CSS in an EPUB2, CSS 2.1 was the lesser of two evils.

No, it was on the other thread that it was suggested that EPUB 2 is closer to CSS 2.1:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=206894

It seems to me that the choice of lowest common denominator shouldn't have been between CSS 2.1 and CSS 3 but rather between CSS 2.1 and 2.0, with the latter being preferred. But I gather this has already been discussed. Someone on that thread suggested 2.0 should be the default rather than 2.1. Maybe that was right. But having the ability to choose what version of CSS to validate against, rather than having it chosen by what kind of EPUB one is working on, seems best for Sigil.

[DiapDealer]

I've thrown together a stop-gap Sigil plugin that should allow users to validate their stylesheets with CSS level 3 (or 2, or 2.1 for that matter). Sigil 0.9.5 should make this plugin unnecessary.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=272066

[bookman156]

Works great. Thanks.

[DiapDealer]

This has now been addressed in Sigil 0.9.5. It's all left up to the user, now. No need to use the plugin any more (unless you want to, that is).