Vendor-specific extensions are invalid CSS

In New W3C website launched I mentioned that the W3C’s new site uses a bit of invalid CSS. A couple of readers have told me that the errors caused by vendor-specific extensions aren’t really errors, and that the CSS validator is wrong to report such property names as errors.

I wasn’t completely sure about whether or not this was true, so I did a bit of research. And, to the best of my understanding, vendor-specific extensions are invalid.

Correct grammar but still invalid

Here is the relevant part from CSS 2.1, currently in Candidate Recommendation status (emphasis mine):

A valid CSS 2.1 style sheet must be written according to the grammar of CSS 2.1. Furthermore, it must contain only at-rules, property names, and property values defined in this specification.

Vendor-specific extensions (mostly) do adhere to the CSS 2.1 grammar, but since they are not defined in the CSS 2.1 specification, they are invalid. Hence the CSS validator is correct in reporting them as validation errors.

Invalid does not necessarily mean “do not use”

Invalid or not, vendor-specific extensions to CSS can be useful. And since the CSS specification requires that CSS parsers ignore declarations with an unknown property, they should also be safe to use.

The catch is that the CSS validator won’t help you find typos or other errors in properties it knows nothing about.

An idea for the CSS validator

When using validation during QA, you have to manually filter out any errors caused by vendor-specific extensions. How much of a problem this is obviously depends on how much you use vendor-specific CSS, but there is no question that it takes longer than if you could be certain that all errors are “real” errors.

One way around this problem would be for the CSS validator to have an option to list errors caused by vendor-specific extensions in a section called “Vendor-specific”, “Experimental”, or something similar. The validator could then give you a message like this:

We found 10 errors, 10 of which are caused by vendor-specific extensions.

That way you’ll know right away if you need to take a closer look at the list of errors or not.

Just an idea.

Posted on November 16, 2009 in CSS, Web Standards

Comments are disabled for this post (read why), but if you have spotted an error or have additional info that you think should be in this post, feel free to contact me.