4.9 Check Book CSS warning

[phossler]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Umm wait for the next release when I will disable it along with the rest of the stylistic checks that I have already disabled.

1. Would there be any advantage to justify the extra effort to allow the user to choose which checks to use, or maybe just All or None?

2. I have a 'sort of standard' style sheet so I very seldom remove unused rules and classes, just because I might come back and use one later, not realizing that I deleted it

[theducks]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Which stylistic warnings (apart from this one that I missed) give you errors rather than warnings?

Now I get an orange person tripping (I do have 4.9.1)
Gremlins ?

[Brett Merkey]

Here's the exact URL the "detailed description" links to:
https://github.com/CSSLint/csslint/w...e-defined-once

... very odd. I don't agree with that at all.

As made clear by the link, CSSLint has come within the orbit of the Object Oriented CSS cult started by Nicole Sullivan.
https://www.keycdn.com/blog/oocss

That cult, as any other, makes sense in a very limited context only. Platforms based upon OOCSS are certain that headings should be referred to only once in a set of rules and even the use of "classes" should be avoided.

I will disable it along with the rest of the stylistic checks that I have already disabled.

Mr. Goyal's promise to muffle this cult's ravings within the checker module seems a good thing.

[retiredbiker]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Umm wait for the next release when I will disable it along with the rest of the stylistic checks that I have already disabled.

I just spotted this one: Duplicate property 'background-color" found, as an error. So it's not just doing it at the class level, but down within a class.

Edit: Just spotted that that error was because the color definition was twice within the same class. That does make sense as an error.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by phossler

1. Would there be any advantage to justify the extra effort to allow the user to choose which checks to use, or maybe just All or None?

2. I have a 'sort of standard' style sheet so I very seldom remove unused rules and classes, just because I might come back and use one later, not realizing that I deleted it

Not worth the effort for me, but patches are welcome.

[phossler]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Not worth the effort for me, but patches are welcome.

I wish I could, but for me Python is just a very large snake

[rjwse@aol.com]

I am having trouble interpreting how to read 'check book' and would appreciate if someone could provide explanation. The left panel says chapter 15, line 4, column 59 requires a RBRACE. The right panel says chapter 15, line 35, column 58 has syntax errors. I do not see how these relate. Best regards, Pop

[kovidgoyal]

The right panel has the correct location, the left panel location comes from the underlying CSS checking library which sees only the CSS in isolation. In any case double clicking on the error should take you to its location.

[rjwse@aol.com]

Thanks for the explanation, Mr. Goyal. I was lost. Best regards, Pop

[Phssthpok]

Originally Posted by theducks

Now I get an orange person tripping (I do have 4.9.1)
Gremlins ?

Wow... Donald Trump on acid?