W3C compliance for CSS?

[bitwombat]

Do the _s developers want/aim for compliance with W3C's CSS Validator? It throws lots of warnings about vendor extensions, like:

76      Property -webkit-text-size-adjust is an unknown vendor extension
77      Property -ms-text-size-adjust is an unknown vendor extension
82      Property -webkit-box-sizing is an unknown vendor extension
83      Property -moz-box-sizing is an unknown vendor extension
314         Property -webkit-appearance is an unknown vendor extension
348         Property -webkit-appearance is an unknown vendor extension
349         Property -webkit-box-sizing is an unknown vendor extension

They're just warnings, but some developers aim for "clean" validation so that any potential problems jump out. Just asking! Thanks for _s!

[emiluzelac]

HTML5 validation is still in experimental phase.

On Thursday, August 7, 2014, gbell12 notifications@github.com wrote:

Do the _s developers want/aim for compliance with W3C's CSS Validator? It
throws lots of warnings about vendor extensions, like:

76 Property -webkit-text-size-adjust is an unknown vendor extension
77 Property -ms-text-size-adjust is an unknown vendor extension
82 Property -webkit-box-sizing is an unknown vendor extension
83 Property -moz-box-sizing is an unknown vendor extension
314 Property -webkit-appearance is an unknown vendor extension
348 Property -webkit-appearance is an unknown vendor extension
349 Property -webkit-box-sizing is an unknown vendor extension

They're just warnings, but some developers aim for "clean" validation so
that any potential problems jump out. Just asking! Thanks for _s!

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#558.

[emiluzelac]

also see
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/201101/css_validator_to_report_vendor-specific_extensions_as_warnings_not_errors/

On Thursday, August 7, 2014, Emil Uzelac emil@uzelac.me wrote:

HTML5 validation is still in experimental phase.

On Thursday, August 7, 2014, gbell12 <notifications@github.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','notifications@github.com');> wrote:

Do the _s developers want/aim for compliance with W3C's CSS Validator? It
throws lots of warnings about vendor extensions, like:

76 Property -webkit-text-size-adjust is an unknown vendor extension
77 Property -ms-text-size-adjust is an unknown vendor extension
82 Property -webkit-box-sizing is an unknown vendor extension
83 Property -moz-box-sizing is an unknown vendor extension
314 Property -webkit-appearance is an unknown vendor extension
348 Property -webkit-appearance is an unknown vendor extension
349 Property -webkit-box-sizing is an unknown vendor extension

They're just warnings, but some developers aim for "clean" validation so
that any potential problems jump out. Just asking! Thanks for _s!

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#558.

[jacklenox]

I believe it's not possible to please the W3C validator while also maintaining reasonable browser compatibility when using a lot of the newer features of CSS3.

That said, I think there are a lot of unnecessary vendor extensions in the _s stylesheets. For example, we can probably drop the ones for box-sizing now: http://caniuse.com/#feat=css3-boxsizing

[mikemike]

@jacklenox Android 2.3 (about 1% share) still requires vendor prefixes.

In my opinion they should stay, it's a worthwhile trade off. If anything, I would class the validator as giving false positives and shouldn't even issues warnings for vendor-specific prefixes, although that's just my opinion.

[jacklenox]

@mikemike Fair point, but I guess we could lose the -moz- prefixes on that for example. But I agree with you generally regarding the validator. I think tools like CSS Lint are much more useful.

[mikemike]

@jacklenox I'm in full agreement there :)

[obenland]

FWIW, we've dropped IE6-8 support, and they have more than 1% market share.

[mikemike]

Would we be against dropping -moz- for the most part then, and -webkit- where appropriate?

I'm happy to do the work and create a pull request this evening, if it's something that is required.

[philiparthurmoore]

I believe the IE support drop was due to .com usage, not total web usage. Either way, cleaning out the rules that are no longer needed doesn't sound like a bad idea.

[mikemike]

Well I'll give it a whirl this evening, and we can make a more educated decision then.

Watch this space :)

[fsylum]

Just to throw it out there, since SASS is coming to _s, can we integrate autoprefixer as well? At least, we can reduce some repetitive tasks with regard to checking which vendor prefix to be included

[mikemike]

I'm happy to look at implementing that @fsylum, but it's probably best as a separate commit/pull. Also probably worth a conversation as it does require a bit of input from the developer to run.

[philiparthurmoore]

Just to throw it out there, since SASS is coming to _s, can we integrate autoprefixer as well? At least, we can reduce some repetitive tasks with regard to checking which vendor prefix to be included

I agree with @mikemike that this is a separate Issue.

[fsylum]

Guys,

Just to revisit this, what is the official browser support for _s? I can't find it anywhere on the README/website.

Edit: Nvm, found it in CONTRIBUTING doc.

[philiparthurmoore]

Closing this since we're talking about it in #561.