Interchange W3C validation issues

Hello. I am trying to make my Website 100% valid on W3C but it seems that it give me an error on Interchange because the img tag does not have a SRC attribute. Does any have a solution or a work around

You can set an empty src but so far this is how interchange works. If you use only images you should use picture / srcset.

Hi DanielRuf

I’m also having W3C issues. Are there any bug fixes for this please? Am using the fluid grid Foundation package version 6.6.3 downloaded on 3rd July 2020 and have some concerns about foundation.min.css. Came accross these issues when validating my newly created simple and currently small website files via the W3C CSS Validation Service http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ The same result was given with the file foundation.css, but as the results were identical, I have only attached foundation.min.css to this message. All of my other css and html files pass with “No error found” (CSS level 3+SVG) apart from http://www.pianoclub.online/css/foundation.min.css which displayed this error…

Too few values for the property “width” in line 3442 “@media screen and (min-width:0\0) {“

W3C even refered to this as “a CSS hack”

In addition there were 1191 warnings “unknown vendor extension”.

Can you please tell me as simply as possible what is going on here please? Are these just unfortunate bugs in the downloaded foundation.min.css and have they been corrected in any updates? As far as I know 6.6.3 is the latest version.

Any help will be much appreciated and might just mean I can display the WC3 logo on my pages (:slight_smile:

Best wishes,

Clifski

Yes, this is a hack for old browsers and totally ok.

Probably false-positives. Can be safely ignored.

Regarding interchange and the src attribute? No, you should use <picture> or srcset.

Not sure what you mean with this, there are no “real” bugs. The styles have not changed since a few releases so no. Nothing is wrong or has to be fixed here. As already mentioned, most warnings can be safely ignored.

Thank you DanielRuf for your helpful 4 replies which are most reassuring and leave me with the distinct impression that Foundation is ahead of W3C!

In the light of your positive comments, do you think it’s OK for me to put the WC3 logo on my pages although foundation.min.css doesn’t actually “pass” their scan?

Thanks again
BW
Clifski

This should be fine, yes. As we still have vendor prefixed CSS rules and CSS hacks for old(er) browsers (see the list of supported browsers at https://get.foundation/sites/docs/compatibility.html) this is expected and these are no errors in my opinion.

Hello DanielRuf,
Actually i have been facing the validation issues recently and i thought of creating a discussion regarding this. Now iam clear with what you have said and iam gonna implement this for my issues.
Thanks again

Hello DanielRuf,
Thanks for your definitive reply which of-course is exactly what I was hoping you would say. Also I’m delighted and grateful to have this issue resolved by a major contributor to the Foundation package 6.6.3, which is nothing short of life-changing.
Thanks again and best wishes.
Clifski