Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:06:37 UTC
Created attachment 5943 [details] Corrected two errors for CSS 3 and one for CSS 2.1 The Monobook skin is not valid CSS 2.1 or 3 I've done two corrections (see the patch) and now it's valid CSS 3 but not 2.1 because of the overflow-x:hidden that is present only in CSS 3.
Fixed the colors in r49959. Not touching overflow-x because it's valid CSS3.
Reopening, recommend revert. darkblue and orange are both valid CSS3 colors: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#svg-color They've been interoperably implemented since forever in all browsers, and "orange" and "darkblue" are much more comprehensible than their hex-color equivalents. Broken validators that disagree with the specs should be ignored.
(In reply to comment #2) > Reopening, recommend revert. darkblue and orange are both valid CSS3 colors: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#svg-color > > They've been interoperably implemented since forever in all browsers, and > "orange" and "darkblue" are much more comprehensible than their hex-color > equivalents. Broken validators that disagree with the specs should be ignored. > I used the official W3C CSS Validator, see this result: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org&profile=css3&usermedium=all&warning=1&lang=en
The official CSS validator doesn't recognize pretty much any CSS3. That doesn't mean we should refuse to use CSS3 when it's stable and interoperably implemented. In this case, the CSS3 has the notable benefit of being easier to read: it's especially impossible for anyone to figure out that "#FFA500" means "orange" without checking it out (#00008B is admittedly more comprehensible). Shutting up validators that are demonstrably *wrong* is not a legitimate reason to do anything, especially if it has negative effects.
Reverted in r50160 per comments on code review. WONTFIX.
