> Adding those ZZZ may cause the whole thing to fail.
>> Adding those ZZZ may cause the whole thing to fail.
>
> Really? I do that all the time and I've never had a problem in either
> IE, FF or even Dreamweaver. When have you run into problems?
I was pointing out that your post said to "comment out" then added ZZZ
to the attribute. A legal comment mark in CSS is to surround the desired
part with /* and */
Whether it works or not would be up to the browser. My understanding is
that browsers have the option to ignore, or disregard, some or any or
all parts of CSS if there is an error. Depends on the browser, I
suppose.
Surely the validator will choke on it. <g> It reports:
Property zzzbackground-image doesn't exist:

Signature
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.
Bill Norton - 30 Sep 2006 19:04 GMT
> Whether it works or not would be up to the browser. My understanding is
> that browsers have the option to ignore, or disregard, some or any or
> all parts of CSS if there is an error. Depends on the browser, I
> suppose.
Adding ZZZ or anything else to make the element invalid is a great way to
quickly test its effect on the page. Both FF and IE will ignore an invalid
element.
Developers who don't know this trick should give it a try. It is much more
efficient than /*...*/ during development, however I wouldn't leave it in
once I published the page.
Spartanicus - 30 Sep 2006 20:46 GMT
>I was pointing out that your post said to "comment out" then added ZZZ
>to the attribute. A legal comment mark in CSS is to surround the desired
>part with /* and */
CSS has no "attributes", and the OP did not say it did.
>Whether it works or not would be up to the browser. My understanding is
>that browsers have the option to ignore, or disregard, some or any or
>all parts of CSS if there is an error.
Your understanding is wrong. The behaviour for parsing invalid property
names is normatively defined and must result in ignoring the single
declaration only:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#parsing-errors

Signature
Spartanicus
Alan J. Flavell - 30 Sep 2006 21:00 GMT
> Whether it works or not would be up to the browser. My understanding
> is that browsers have the option to ignore, or disregard, some or
> any or all parts of CSS if there is an error. Depends on the
> browser, I suppose.
Refer to e.g http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#parsing-errors
for details. For some kinds of error it is mandatory to ignore the
erroneous part. Of course, MSIE ignores this mandate when it feels
like it, just like it seems to ignore mandatory requirements of
various other IETF and W3C interworking specifications, but the rules
apply to proper web-compatible browsers.
(I referred to css 2.1 because it's the nearest thing we have to a
current specification, despite its status as w3c. Consult one of the
other CSS specifications if you prefer.)
Beauregard T. Shagnasty - 30 Sep 2006 21:38 GMT
>> Whether it works or not would be up to the browser. My understanding
>> is that browsers have the option to ignore, or disregard, some or
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> various other IETF and W3C interworking specifications, but the rules
> apply to proper web-compatible browsers.
Ok. I do remember reading somewhere, some time ago, that some browsers
would ignore all bits if one bit was wrong. Then again, it *was* some
time ago...

Signature
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.