Subject | Re: Sandman still lying about his CSS |
From | Steve Carroll |
Date | 02/08/2017 21:01 (02/08/2017 12:01) |
Message-ID | <f433badc-07b5-4da3-8d4d-7d56312ca9b1@googlegroups.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | Steve Carroll |
Followups | Steve Carroll (41m) |
Steve CarrollAnd maybe removing overflow:auto from...
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 12:10:52 PM UTC-7, Sandman wrote:SandmanSteve Carroll
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
In article <2f2c171c-01c3-4834-99b1-6abddbe0aba2@googlegroups.com>, Steve Carroll wrote:
<snip Snit's CSS lies>Steve CarrollSandman
Big deal... lots of sites have CSS errors (and worse). Generally speaking, CSS errors are really only problematic when they screw up the layout, look (i.e. animation).
Indeed. Validation is of little concern to me, never has been. Which is also obvious when you see my followup to his first post, where he pointed to my HTML not validating:
Re: Maccies aren't fanatical? <mr-132F79.19552829052006@individual.net> Sandman <mr@sandman.net>05/29/2006Steve CarrollSandman
[3178] On a side note, I decided to look at Sandman. [3179] net: your code is pretty damned bad.
Yeah, I know. It's not bad - but it doesn't validate very good. That's because the system that does the code consists of over 1 million rows of code, so there are good and bad parts of it.
Indeed - actually, you just helped me. Most of the errors were entities in URL's, which frankly isn't a problem. I have a regexp to fix that, but it didn't work. Ooops. Thanks. Most of the other errors are usage of tags that don't conform to the DOCTYPE but still work, such as ABSMIDDLE, which actually makes a difference
Any casual reader should note that I had no problem admitting to non- validating code at all, nor any pride invested in something so trivial as HTML/CSS validating. This somehow seemed to upset Snit so he probably just flung something to see if it stuck, and he lied about my CSS not validating, which of course it did.Steve Carroll
Of the pages I ever saw you point to on his site, I never saw a layout munged by CSS. Here is his current home page on a modern monitor (note that his site is responsive):<http://imgur.com/a/0RsYR>Sandman
I am actually having a severe CSS problem on my site right now, which is visible on that screenshot. And it totally boggles me.
Weird... looks like it might be related to the line-height on the body but even making that 0 doesn't remove all of them. Still, this is not an error, just a design issue.