Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Downgrade CSS Validator failures to warnings. #322

Closed
mikewest opened this issue Apr 15, 2016 · 11 comments
Closed

Downgrade CSS Validator failures to warnings. #322

mikewest opened this issue Apr 15, 2016 · 11 comments

Comments

@mikewest
Copy link
Member

In light of #321, it seems reasonable to ignore CSS Validator failures until such time as the validator validates all valid CSS. The alternative is for every bikeshed user to apply for exemptions individually, which seems like a lot of overhead.

@tripu
Copy link
Member

tripu commented Apr 15, 2016

(The exception can be defined for all specs, as Denis pointed out in #321 (comment)).

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

Given that #321 got closed and resolved, can we close this one?

@tripu
Copy link
Member

tripu commented May 2, 2016

In favour of closing, too. Waiting for @mikewest's comments.

@mikewest
Copy link
Member Author

mikewest commented May 2, 2016

This bug was predicated upon the validator being out of date, so if y'all are confident that the validator will be doing the right thing going forward, great!

@tripu
Copy link
Member

tripu commented May 2, 2016

The CSS validator may misbehave again in the future. When that happens, and as @deniak pointed out, we can ignore that false positive for all specs at once. It is not ideal, but IMHO it's better than ignoring all false positives for all specs pre-emptively, as this issue seems to suggest.

@mikewest mikewest closed this as completed May 2, 2016
@dontcallmedom
Copy link
Member

I would like to revisit the idea of making CSS validation optional in pubrules, since there is yet another case of mis-firing errors in #500 .

While I think it's great to use valid CSS, I don't think it's a particularly important criteria for being able to publish a new draft of a spec; and given the recurrent false positives, I would suggest we leave CSS validation as a post-CR requirement (if at all).

@dontcallmedom dontcallmedom reopened this Sep 16, 2016
@plehegar
Copy link
Member

@fantasai , got an opinion?

@fantasai
Copy link

I'm OK with dom's proposal to reduce publishing friction. We should require validation for CR+ if possible, though, and provide exemptions or validator fixes as necessary. That will help to catch errors (in both the specs and the validator).

@tripu
Copy link
Member

tripu commented Sep 19, 2016

I don't have a strong opinion about this.

I wonder if these “false positives”, when they happen, have at least the benefit of pushing people into updating the checkers from time to time. That has happened a few times already.

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

plehegar commented Oct 8, 2016

We shouldn't use pubrules as a way to force the checkers imho. +1 to downgrade css validator for <= CR

@jennyliang220
Copy link
Contributor

Pubrules no longer relys on the CSS validator (##1085). This issue duplicates #866. Pubrules currently relays on the https://validator.w3.org/nu/.

I'm closing this issue. If there's more CSS failures in the future, let's reopen this issue and add exceptions.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants