你相信谁？ [英] Whom Do You Trust?
问题描述
在验证外部样式表时，我从这个
新闻组中了解到（至少）有两种选择：
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/csscheck.cgi
刚刚完成了一个巨大的（对我来说）转换
项目的第一阶段，我决定看看CSScheck对CSS有什么看法验证者'
持久性鼓励您提供一个通用的家庭作为最后的
替代品，当我所有的font-family加价结束时
" sans-serif"或arial。 （除了一个[1！]杂项webdings
规格，我不知道在那周围！）
Whooooa！在一个非常糟糕的一天，CSScheck比Lauri Raittila更难！
我的意思是，我理解警告，例如边境崩溃属性是
目前没有由CSSCheck支持，但当它标记每个单独的块级格式化实例时，垂直对齐属性
仅适用于内联和表格单元格元素，当CSS-Validator
高高兴兴地给它竖起大拇指时，我想相信它？
BTW：vertical-align这个组的史蒂夫·普格（Steve Pugh）建议作为DIV控制，并且工作得很好。
-
- 你的真的，Pete Collinson
When validating external style sheets, I have learned from this
newsgroup that there are (at least) two choices:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/csscheck.cgi
Having just completed phase one of an enormous (for me) conversion
project, I decided to see what CSScheck had to say about CSS-validator''s
persistent "You are encouraged to offer a generic family as a last
alternative," when all my "font-family" mark-up ends with either
"sans-serif" or "arial." (Except for one [1!] miscellaneous "webdings"
specification, and I don''t know anyway around that!)
Whooooa! CSScheck was tougher than Lauri Raittila on a really bad day!
I mean, I understand warnings such as "The border-collapse property is
not currently supported by CSSCheck," but when it marks every single
instance of block level formatting with "The vertical-align property
only applies to inline and table-cell elements," when CSS-Validator
cheerfully gives it a thumbs up, which am I supposted to believe?
BTW: the "vertical-align" property was suggested as a DIV control by
Steve Pugh of this group, and worked nicely.
--
- Yours truly, Pete Collinson
推荐答案
Peter Collinson写道：
Peter Collinson wrote:
刚刚完成了第一阶段（对我来说）转换
项目，我决定看看CSScheck对CSS-validator'的持久性有什么看法？我们鼓励你提供一个通用的家族作为最后的替代品， "当我所有的font-family加价以
sans-serif结尾
这是一个通用字体系列，除非你引用它。关键字不得为CSS引用的
。
或arial。
这是一个特定的字体系列，并不是通用的。
（除了一个[1！]杂项webdings
规范，我不知道在那周围！）
避免使用符号字体，使用图像。
我的意思是，我理解警告，例如 ; CSSCheck目前不支持border-collapse属性，但是当它标记每个单独的块级格式化实例时，垂直对齐属性
仅适用于内联和表格单元格元素，当CSS-Validator高兴地给它竖起大拇指时，我猜想要相信吗？
Having just completed phase one of an enormous (for me) conversion
project, I decided to see what CSScheck had to say about CSS-validator''s
persistent "You are encouraged to offer a generic family as a last
alternative," when all my "font-family" mark-up ends with either
"sans-serif"
That is a generic font family, unless you quote it. Keywords must not be
quoted in CSS.
or "arial."
Which is a specific font family and not at all generic.
(Except for one [1!] miscellaneous "webdings"
specification, and I don''t know anyway around that!)
Avoid symbol fonts, use an image.
I mean, I understand warnings such as "The border-collapse property is
not currently supported by CSSCheck," but when it marks every single
instance of block level formatting with "The vertical-align property
only applies to inline and table-cell elements," when CSS-Validator
cheerfully gives it a thumbs up, which am I supposted to believe?
虽然_valid_试图将vertical-align应用于块级元素，
它_shouldn''_对页面的渲染有任何影响。
-
David Dorward http://david.us-lot.org/
Peter Collinson写道：
Peter Collinson wrote:
（除了一个[1！]杂项webdings
规范，我不知道不管怎么说都不知道！）
(Except for one [1!] miscellaneous "webdings"
specification, and I don''t know anyway around that!)
Lauri Raittila< la *** @ raittila.cjb.net>写道：你在使用webdings是什么？如果我没有误解，那就是dingbat字体可能对20％的用户起作用。
Lauri Raittila <la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote: To what are you using webdings? If I have not misunderstood, it is
dingbat font that works on maybe 20% of users.
除非你在字符中使用dingbat字体喜欢& spades;，
&俱乐部;，& hearts;或& diamond ;,如果它确实工作的话。然后它意味着
浏览器是错误的。
-
Darin McGrew， mc **** @ stanfordalumni.org ， http： //www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
网页设计组， da *** @ htmlhelp。 com ， http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
没有正确的方法做错事。
And unless you''re using dingbat fonts for characters like ♠,
♣, ♥, or &diamonds;, if it does "work" then it means the
browser is wrong.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
"There is no right way to do the wrong thing."
Lauri Raittila< la *** @ raittila。 cjb.net>写道：
Lauri Raittila <la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote:
我不会真的推荐htmlhelp一个。它不是最新的。
它在很多方面都相当过时，但对于初学者来说，由于其更好的用户界面，因此更有用，因此更有用一般来说，
消息。并且它进行了一些启发式检查，即CSS
Validator。没有表现。
有趣的是，任何有充分理由提供通用的家庭服装都不是一个好主意。
I wouldn''t really recommend htmlhelp one. It is not up to date.
It''s rather outdated in many ways, but especially for a beginner, it is
more useful due to its better user interface - more understandable
messages, in general. And it makes some heuristic checks that the "CSS
Validator" does not perform.
The funny thing is that it is not very good idea to offer generic
family whitout any good reason.
我会说，在font-family的大多数简单用法中，它都是。希望建议Arial的平均作者很可能更喜欢使用通用sans-serif字体的
演示文稿。他甚至可能会有一些实际的美学造型，或多或少地假设
字体是类似Arial的。
一个好的CSS检查器可以选择在
或关闭时切换这样的报告。
I would say that in most simple uses of font-family, it is. The average
author who wishes to suggest Arial would most probably prefer a
presentation that uses a generic sans-serif font. He might even have
some actual esthetic styling that more or less plays by assumption that
the font is Arial-like.
A good CSS checker would have an option for switching such reporting on
or off.
我的意思是，我理解CSSCheck目前不支持边界崩溃
属性等警告。但当它标记每个块级格式化的实例时，
vertical-align属性仅适用于内联和表格单元格元素，当CSS-Validator高高兴兴地竖起大拇指时，
我想要相信吗？
I mean, I understand warnings such as "The border-collapse
property is not currently supported by CSSCheck," but when it
marks every single instance of block level formatting with "The
vertical-align property only applies to inline and table-cell
elements," when CSS-Validator cheerfully gives it a thumbs up,
which am I supposted to believe?
那是对的。
Well it is right about that.
_Which_一个是对的，在您看来？我会说两者都是。
CSS Validator是不是将情况报告为
错误。这不是错误，因为所有元素都具有所有属性。
CSSCheck正确地发出警告，因为作者很可能没有这么做这真的意味着使用一个没有效果的声明。
当天的挑剔：原则上，一个块的垂直对齐设置
级别element _may_对页面的渲染有影响。
虽然它不影响元素本身的表示（符合浏览器的符合
），但元素可能包含元素有
vertical-align：inherit。
-
Yucca， http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
这篇关于你相信谁？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
