We launched new forums in March 2019—join us there. In a hurry for help with your website? Get Help Now!
    • 36805
    • 354 Posts
    Inspired by the (very cool) step template i leeched from http://www.tattoocms.it/templates/step.html i modded my own dropdown menu’s to support transparency with the following lines of css code:

    filter:alpha(opacity=80);
    -moz-opacity:0.8;
    opacity:0.8;
    -khtml-opacity:0.8;
    


    I guess it uses those 4 different conventions in order to work across all common browsers and it does (tested FF and IE). My problem is if i include all of these declarations in my css file i get validation errors embarrassed

    Maybe someone knows a workaround. I would be happy to read about it!

    Also i am wondering: How important is CSS validation for a website? I know various of reasons to care about (X)HTML validation but what are the main downsides of ignoring CSS validation failures?
      • 28042 ☆ A M B ☆
      • 24,524 Posts
      In my opinion, the only value to the validation is to find potential errors in my HTML or CSS code. If I want a non-valid tag for some reason, I’m not going to get all excited because the W3C doesn’t recognize my tag... or my target=_blank, for that matter.
        Studying MODX in the desert - http://sottwell.com
        Tips and Tricks from the MODX Forums and Slack Channels - http://modxcookbook.com
        Join the Slack Community - http://modx.org
        • 36805
        • 354 Posts
        Quote from: sottwell at Aug 09, 2006, 07:17 AM

        In my opinion, the only value to the validation is to find potential errors in my HTML or CSS code. If I want a non-valid tag for some reason, I’m not going to get all excited because the W3C doesn’t recognize my tag... or my target=_blank, for that matter.

        I agree with what you are saying since the error is (in this case) indeed just a formal error from a w3c automated validators point of view and not a *real* error.

        The only downside i can think of with having formal/pseudo errors in a website’s css is that it is not a good idea to place a validate-the-css-of-this-page-with-w3c hyperlink on the website in question. But then again for the site in question this is probably not necessary.

        And even *if* any client would insist i could explain that it just can’t have formal valid css _and_ support transparancy.
          • 28042 ☆ A M B ☆
          • 24,524 Posts
          Put the IE stuff in IE conditonals:

          http://archivist.incutio.com/viewlist/css-discuss/65335
            Studying MODX in the desert - http://sottwell.com
            Tips and Tricks from the MODX Forums and Slack Channels - http://modxcookbook.com
            Join the Slack Community - http://modx.org
            • 22815
            • 1,097 Posts
            Quote from: MrDutchy at Aug 09, 2006, 08:18 AM

            The only downside i can think of with having formal/pseudo errors in a website’s css is that it is not a good idea to place a validate-the-css-of-this-page-with-w3c hyperlink on the website in question. But then again for the site in question this is probably not necessary.

            I can’t actually imagine any site that *needs* the validate link! But yes, that would be the only downside.

            As a rule of thumb, if the only reason something doesn’t validate is browser-specific code *in addition to the valid code*, it is not a problem at all. It is more important that a site works across browsers than meets some criteria.
              No, I don't know what OpenGeek's saying half the time either.
              MODx Documentation: The Wiki | My Wiki contributions | Main MODx Documentation
              Forum: Where to post threads about add-ons | Forum Rules
              Like MODx? donate (and/or share your resources)
              Like me? See my Amazon wishlist
              MODx "Most Promising CMS" - so appropriate!