Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple APILearn More
Fast-Nop40119234dWould the W3C CSS checker have found it? https://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator...
I use that, and https://validator.w3.org/ for the markup, and https://wave.webaim.org/ for basic accessibility validation.
Grumm1486234dGuess same way as a scale will not give an error to the baker when he adds to much flour for making his bread ?
Why is it so hard today to see dev as a profession like a car mechanic or baker ? Learn and rely on the knowledge to do stuff, not waiting until an AI gives you an error for you.
@Grumm It's not unrealistic to expect a parser to tell me which state it failed in and what would've been the acceptable input continuations. In fact, it's very unprofessional to include a parser in high-profile projects that *doesn't* provide this information. That's like a scale that has one led which lights up when load exceeds 1kg.
Of all dev tools I ever used, only web browsers and SQL databases actually do this, and even a database tells me which character failed to parse.
vintprox5037234dIt's also not unrealistic to look in issue tracker of said extension, then see a ton of side issues and last commit dating months ago. In the best case scenario anyway...
Grumm1486234d@lbfalvy Sure, but again these are just tools. We shouldn't only follow what they tell you.
It is like blaming a hammer for bending the nail once in a while.
plugins are not always 100% without bugs.
Using the W3C checkers are also helpful.
@Grumm I spent many hours debugging font loading before I realized that this was the actual issue. I'm not blaming the tools, just missing a feature that would have been firmly within scope for a browser's dev console, much easier to implement than for anything else involved, and would have saved me a lot of time.
Fast-Nop40119234d@lbfalvy The nasty thing with browsers is that they try to interpret whatever shit you throw at them. So if the syntax is off, you can get weird cross-browser behaviour that is hard to debug. That's why I check the validity routinely so that I don't waste time.
daniel-wu468233dYeah... browsers can show web pages just fine even when they are missing <head> and <body> tag.
Grumm1486233d@daniel-wu Well that is actually a html 5 thing :
Head and body are not mandatory.
font-family expects a comma-separated list. Fonts haven't been displaying on my blog for months because of this issue.
Why could NONE of the browsers I tested this on give me a real syntax error instead of "invalid property value" which could mean literally anything.
Edit: Actually, why can't the CSS plugin for VSCode tell me that I'm making a syntax error in the value of a well-known property?