Re: Difference between http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ and http://www.css-validator.org/ css validators?

2014-10-28 13:32, Martin =C5=A0o=C5=A1i=C4=87 wrote:

> I tried validating my css using both validators and they give different
> results! http://www.css-validator.org/returns much more errors (245 in
> my case) than http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ (which returned 24
> errors).
> What is the difference between these to? Aren't they both under w3c?

The css-validator.org site appears to be fake, probably using some old=20
copy of the W3C CSS Validator code. Note the Facebook stuff and the=20
oddly formatted bulk of text on the page, linking to a mobile checker,=20
which seems to be another fake, with some advertising that is probably=20
the whole point in having these fake sites.

> Examples of errors not returned by css-validator but not by jigsaw:

I think you meant to write =E2=80=9Cerrors returned=E2=80=9D, without the=
 word =E2=80=9Cnot=E2=80=9D.

>
>   * ".kill-flicker: Property backface-visibility doesn't exist : hidden
>     hidden" Line no: "5"
>   * ": Unknown pseudo-element or pseudo-class ::-moz-focus-inner
>     [-moz-focus-inner]" Line no: "225"

If the W3C CSS Validator has been modified to recognize the property=20
backface-visibility, it is natural that it differs from a fake copy of=20
the older code base. For similar reasons, vendor extensions like
::-moz-focus-inner are handled differently.

As an aside, it puzzles me why backface-visibility is recognized, since=20
it is defined only in a Working Draft (which is almost a year old now,=20
and according to the information about implementation status in the=20
Editor=E2=80=99s draft http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-transforms/ it is stil=
l=20
rather incompletely implemented in browsers).

Yucca