Over the past few weeks I’ve received a number of emails from visitors to CSS3.info regarding CSS3 validation errors when using vendor specific extentions, for example -moz, -webkit, to implement CSS3 in their websites.
This certainly isn’t a new topic, and in fact Joost de Valke first raised the issue on this website back in January 2007, however a glance over the W3C mailing-list archive highlights that this debate is still going strong, with a number of interesting ideas raised, and I thought it would make an interesting discussion point for the CSS3.info community.
The problem is that, at present, none of the CSS3 modules have yet receached the status of becoming an official W3C Recommendation, as such any of these specifications could in theory be changed at time, particularly those that are still in the early stage of development.
Obviously browser vendors (with the exception of course of our beloved friend Microsoft) are keen to support these up and coming CSS3 specifications, however as they are still at an “experimental” stage of development it is necessary for the various css3 properties to be implemented using vendor specific extensions in order to avoid any possible conflicts with current or future css specifications.
Web designers are equally keen to implement these latest CSS3 techniques in their projects as browser support, along with interest from the wider community, continues to grow – a quick search around the blogosphere shows countless new CSS3 tutorials being added to the web on a weekly basis, and sites such as CSS3Gallery.net showcasing web designers putting CSS3 to great use in their projects. However many are facing a catch 22 situation, weighing up the pros and cons between utilising the latest that CSS3 has to offer against the fact that their creations won’t pass the W3C Validator, with some web designers even going so far as to question the importance of validation.
When Joost De Valk brought this concern before the W3C back in January 2007, he was met with a somewhat muted response, however the debate has continued to intesify and a number of interesting suggestions have been put to the W3C:
- That the CSS3 Validator could offer the option to ignore vendor specific extensions,
- That the CSS3 Validator could highlight vendor specific extentions with a warning, rather than an error,
- Or my own personal favourite, that the validator could mark such code as ‘experimental’ rather than error, or warning
Either or these methods would allow web designers to continue to validate their pages, an important process for spotting any errors in your code, as despite some designers questioning the importance of validation, personally I think it’s a necessary and important tool.
In the meantime, several web designers have suggested their own personal ways of overcoming the problem, with many commenting out CSS3 code until they have validated their pages, so that at least they can check the accuracy of their CSS2.1 code.
In conclusion I’d like to say that, in my opinion, both sides of the argument present some valid points – obviously the W3c can’t be expected to validate what isn’t technically valid CSS, however perhaps the word ‘error’ is too strong, and marking vendor specific code with a ‘warning’ or ‘experimental’ status would be a happy medium between the needs of the W3C and designers eager to implement CSS3.
At the same time, I have to question whether or not the time has yet come for designers to be implementing CSS3 in their client projects. I think CSS3 is perfectly acceptable to be used in a designer’s own projects, and quite essential to promote the growth of CSS3, but is it really acceptable to sell a client experimental code that could cease to function at any time if the W3C ammends a specification, or browser vendors change the syntax with which a property is implemented?
Once again I turn the debate over to you, CSS3.info’s readers, how to you feel about this issue, and what’s the best solution from your point of view?
Source: http://www.css3.info/the-big-css3-validation-debate/#
Tags: CSS, css specifications, css3, stage of development, validation errors, w3c recommendation, w3c validator, Web Design, web designers
I love the idea of the “experimental” marker. (At the risk of
starting the argument all over again: Marking CSS3 as an “error” is
incorrect, IMHO: it isn’t wrong, it’s just outside the current spec
of the validator.)
Nice information, I really appreciate the way you presented.Thanks for sharing..