Is there any way I will be able to get this to validate without errors?

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xennova.com%2Fcontact&profile=css21&usermedium=all&warning=1&lang=en

Any input is appreciated.

Yeah, it can be made to validate…

  1. LOSE the vendor specific nonsense you shouldn’t even be wasting bandwidth on in a production website in the first place. Made worse by your using the browser specific CSS3 workalikes and not actually including the REAL CSS3 calls.

	-moz-border-radius: 4px 4px 4px 4px;
	-moz-box-shadow: 0 1px 1px rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.1);

and where are the REAL border-radius and box-shadow calls? Much less the webkit specific versions… What’s the point of that if it’s only going to work in firefox?

  1. Lose the IE specific scrollbar color nonsense.

  2. As Felgall noted, fix the comments so they use the asterisk wrap and not the // since that’s not valid CSS

  3. You might want to axe the jquery nonsense since you’d have to check values server side and the size of the form shouldn’t be an issue in terms of server load compared to sending 108k of of document for a 1k form. Much less the captcha code seems completely broken…

  4. speaking of broken, it helps to have valid HMTL before you start applying CSS to it. I’m trying to figure out why the validator is only throwing one error in the markup when I see at least a dozen things wrong - but that could be just the tranny doctype.

  5. Oh yeah, tranny + CSS3, GOOD PLAN - NOT. Transitional is for supporting old/outdated/half-assed coding techniques, NOT for building modern websites.

So, to sum up, lose the pointless CSS3, make the markup valid STRICT, lose the 100+k of scripting (that even using scripting shouldn’t take more than 4k), the broken captcha… in general - throw it out and start over.

You’re at 108k to support three inputs and a textarea!!! - if that’s not a sure indication of doing things wrong…

Alternatively modularise and create an additional CSS file if you really must use some of the experimental CSS but I agree you should drop the coloured scrollbars.

I think the main reason the validation was only spitting out 1 error was due to the fact the some elements weren’t in the minimised form but still loosely valid. Well, that’s what it looked like to me.

Although there was quite a lot of bloat and nonsense in there as well and the scripts should have been external or properly declared, etc.

I appreciate your help but you could be a little less abrasive. Everyone has to learn some time.

Any way, how would you suggest I validate the form for the inputs?

Thanks

Show us your HTML for that and we wil suggest an appropriate HTML for it :slight_smile:

No, those are vendor-specific properties that giving the errors and they will not validate for that reason.

Don’t let it bother you, you might find this article helpful.

You do have a few spots where you have // which is invalid in CSS as CSS does not use that for single line comments. To place comments in CSS you must use /* */

I have never been able to figure out why the validator reports values starting with a - as errors since the standards actually say that properties that start with a dash are specifically reserved for where they are vendor specific and so properties that start with a dash should be treated as automatically valid or at worse produce a warning that not everyone will see that effect because it is vendor specific.