Whos wrong - Moz or W3C?

Discussion in 'Firefox' started by user@domain.invalid, Oct 16, 2004.

  1. Guest

    Find a page where some table cells was made like this:
    <td width="253" height="10" bgcolor="98a7b2">Some text in white color</td>

    Since the page background was white I could't see the text inside the
    cell, with Mozilla. But in IE it shows. The difference is that the color
    code don't have the # sign included, it should be: bgcolor="#98a7b2".

    Since that affect the rendering in Mozilla, I was very supriced that the
    W3C validator don't notice that as an error. Or is it just Mozilla who
    required the # sign in the color code?

    I have a test on my own here, if interested:
    http://w1.978.telia.com/~u97802964/tests/test3.html

    --
    /Arne
     
    , Oct 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jos Guest

    Op Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:39:19 GMT schreef lid:

    >Find a page where some table cells was made like this:
    ><td width="253" height="10" bgcolor="98a7b2">Some text in white color</td>
    >
    >Since the page background was white I could't see the text inside the
    >cell, with Mozilla. But in IE it shows. The difference is that the color
    >code don't have the # sign included, it should be: bgcolor="#98a7b2".
    >
    >Since that affect the rendering in Mozilla, I was very supriced that the
    >W3C validator don't notice that as an error. Or is it just Mozilla who
    >required the # sign in the color code?
    >
    >I have a test on my own here, if interested:
    >http://w1.978.telia.com/~u97802964/tests/test3.html


    None I guess...
    http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/graphics.html#adef-bgcolor
    http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#type-color
    --
    Greetz,
    -Jos
     
    Jos, Oct 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    Once upon a time *Jos* wrote:

    > Op Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:39:19 GMT schreef lid:
    >
    >>Find a page where some table cells was made like this:
    >><td width="253" height="10" bgcolor="98a7b2">Some text in white color</td>
    >>
    >>Since the page background was white I could't see the text inside the
    >>cell, with Mozilla. But in IE it shows. The difference is that the color
    >>code don't have the # sign included, it should be: bgcolor="#98a7b2".
    >>
    >>Since that affect the rendering in Mozilla, I was very supriced that the
    >>W3C validator don't notice that as an error. Or is it just Mozilla who
    >>required the # sign in the color code?
    >>
    >>I have a test on my own here, if interested:
    >>http://w1.978.telia.com/~u97802964/tests/test3.html

    >
    > None I guess...
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/graphics.html#adef-bgcolor
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#type-color


    I is said that the validator can't tell #XXXXXX is any more right than
    XXXXXX. They're both legal values for CDATA, and that's as much as the
    validator is able to check. But compliant UAs should not interpret
    XXXXXX even it is valid (in an SGML sense) but wrong in other sense.

    There is a difference, but I guess the problem is that some so called
    webmasters will maintain they are right only because their pages is
    valid (at least if they put it in a CSS) and that is sad :p

    --
    /Arne
     
    , Oct 16, 2004
    #3
  4. Brian Guest

    (On 10/16/2004 12:39 PM) lid wrote:
    > Find a page where some table cells was made like this:
    > <td width="253" height="10" bgcolor="98a7b2">Some text in white color</td>
    >
    > Since the page background was white I could't see the text inside the
    > cell, with Mozilla. But in IE it shows. The difference is that the color
    > code don't have the # sign included, it should be: bgcolor="#98a7b2".
    >
    > Since that affect the rendering in Mozilla, I was very supriced that the
    > W3C validator don't notice that as an error. Or is it just Mozilla who
    > required the # sign in the color code?
    >
    > I have a test on my own here, if interested:
    > http://w1.978.telia.com/~u97802964/tests/test3.html
    >


    Apparently the W3C validator is wrong. Unless there is a reference
    somewhere on their site that says hex numbers don't require the '#' symbol.

    Why would you try using a hex number without the '#'?

    --
    Brian

    Email Info--
    http://68.1.17.8/p0nykiller/email.htm
     
    Brian, Oct 16, 2004
    #4
  5. Brian Guest

    (On 10/16/2004 12:39 PM) lid wrote:
    > Find a page where some table cells was made like this:
    > <td width="253" height="10" bgcolor="98a7b2">Some text in white color</td>
    >
    > Since the page background was white I could't see the text inside the
    > cell, with Mozilla. But in IE it shows. The difference is that the color
    > code don't have the # sign included, it should be: bgcolor="#98a7b2".
    >
    > Since that affect the rendering in Mozilla, I was very supriced that the
    > W3C validator don't notice that as an error. Or is it just Mozilla who
    > required the # sign in the color code?
    >
    > I have a test on my own here, if interested:
    > http://w1.978.telia.com/~u97802964/tests/test3.html
    >


    Did you try validating the page through the CSS Validator? It
    validates, but this is how it sees your CSS:

    * body {
    o margin : 2em;
    o font-family : arial;
    o font-size : 0.8em;
    }
    * td {
    o color : #ffffff;
    }
    * .wrong {
    o background : 0 50%;
    }
    * .right {
    o background : #000000;
    }
    * h4 {
    o font-size : 1em;
    }

    [http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/...w1.978.telia.com/~u97802964/tests/test3.html]

    --
    Brian

    Email Info--
    http://68.1.17.8/p0nykiller/email.htm
     
    Brian, Oct 16, 2004
    #5
  6. Guest

    Once upon a time *Brian* wrote:

    > (On 10/16/2004 12:39 PM) lid wrote:
    >> Find a page where some table cells was made like this:
    >> <td width="253" height="10" bgcolor="98a7b2">Some text in white color</td>
    >>
    >> Since the page background was white I could't see the text inside the
    >> cell, with Mozilla. But in IE it shows. The difference is that the color
    >> code don't have the # sign included, it should be: bgcolor="#98a7b2".
    >>
    >> Since that affect the rendering in Mozilla, I was very supriced that the
    >> W3C validator don't notice that as an error. Or is it just Mozilla who
    >> required the # sign in the color code?
    >>
    >> I have a test on my own here, if interested:
    >> http://w1.978.telia.com/~u97802964/tests/test3.html
    >>

    >
    > Did you try validating the page through the CSS Validator? It
    > validates, but this is how it sees your CSS:
    >
    > * body {
    > o margin : 2em;
    > o font-family : arial;
    > o font-size : 0.8em;
    > }
    > * td {
    > o color : #ffffff;
    > }
    > * .wrong {
    > o background : 0 50%;
    > }
    > * .right {
    > o background : #000000;
    > }
    > * h4 {
    > o font-size : 1em;
    > }
    >


    Hey, that was interesting! I moved the background color to the CSS from
    HTML only a few minutes before your visit, and had'nt checked in the the
    validator yet :)

    So the validator change the hex numbers to "0 50%" But what kind of
    "numbers" is it? "0" and "50%" of what makes black color? :-|

    You asked "Why would you try using a hex number without the '#'?"
    As I understand it's just a mistake done on some of the pages I find on
    that site I visited. In most places (e.g. CSS file) they have the #
    included.

    But apparently they don't check their pages in other browsers than IE.
    And don't even check if the HTML and CSS is valid, despite the fact that
    they use the full XHTM 1.0 Declatation on the pages. I often wonder why
    people put effort to add the DTD (including the link) to their pages, if
    they don't have any intention to care about making the pages valid? :)

    --
    /Arne
     
    , Oct 16, 2004
    #6
  7. Guest

    Once upon a time *Brian* wrote:

    > (On 10/16/2004 12:39 PM) lid wrote:
    >> Find a page where some table cells was made like this:
    >> <td width="253" height="10" bgcolor="98a7b2">Some text in white color</td>
    >>
    >> Since the page background was white I could't see the text inside the
    >> cell, with Mozilla. But in IE it shows. The difference is that the color
    >> code don't have the # sign included, it should be: bgcolor="#98a7b2".
    >>
    >> Since that affect the rendering in Mozilla, I was very supriced that the
    >> W3C validator don't notice that as an error. Or is it just Mozilla who
    >> required the # sign in the color code?
    >>
    >> I have a test on my own here, if interested:
    >> http://w1.978.telia.com/~u97802964/tests/test3.html
    >>

    >
    > Did you try validating the page through the CSS Validator? It
    > validates, but this is how it sees your CSS:
    >
    > * body {
    > o margin : 2em;
    > o font-family : arial;
    > o font-size : 0.8em;
    > }
    > * td {
    > o color : #ffffff;
    > }
    > * .wrong {
    > o background : 0 50%;
    > }
    > * .right {
    > o background : #000000;
    > }
    > * h4 {
    > o font-size : 1em;
    > }
    >


    Just found out that IE does the right thing if CSS is used for the color
    settings, and don't try to correct "xxxxxx" as it does with the
    depricated "bgcolor". Let's hope the webmasters use more CSS :)

    --
    /Arne
     
    , Oct 17, 2004
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Griffure
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    894
    Griffure
    Aug 11, 2003
  2. Paul Furman

    Import Moz 1.2.1 to new computer Moz 1.4

    Paul Furman, Oct 2, 2003, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,042
    Paul Furman
    Oct 2, 2003
  3. Moon Goddess

    W3C for amateurs?

    Moon Goddess, Aug 18, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    513
  4. Mainlander

    W3C opposes anti-MS patent

    Mainlander, Nov 3, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    381
    steve
    Nov 4, 2003
  5. saurabh1jadhav

    w3c standard

    saurabh1jadhav, Feb 18, 2009, in forum: Software
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    661
    saurabh1jadhav
    Feb 18, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page