background color & validation

[BiteMe]

Ok , so i got my site looking how i want and it all validates nicely....except for one thing.I dont want a background color on my footer links, so i putbackground-color:transparent;then i validate it and low and behold i get'You have no background-color with your color : #botMenu a'I know i havent i dont want one.So i change it to :inherit;That validates. Hooray, but now gives me an unwanted background color.What the deal? Please help because the office junior cant take much more beating.

[Jack McKalling]

Wasn't it "inherrit"? I am not sure.You can either just use "transparent" or the actual same colour of the thing that is behind the footer. The later one would validate :)Besides, I don't think using words for colours is valid according to the validators. Though they do work in browsers.

[BiteMe]

Wasn't it "inherrit"? I am not sure.You can either just use "transparent" or the actual same colour of the thing that is behind the footer. The later one would validate :)Besides, I don't think using words for colours is valid according to the validators. Though they do work in browsers.

No - 'Inherit' does validate.Normally i would do that but the background image is a gradient, and the background color is on the <a>tag, so the link has a background color, thats what i dont want.

[Cronthenoob]

What happens when you don't specify any type of background-color?

[BiteMe]

What happens when you don't specify any type of background-color?

'You have no background-color with your color '

[Jack McKalling]

Yeah, W3C recommends defining both color and background color, or none of both. This is because of the possibility that eg yellow on white has, practically invisible letters on your document So if you specify the color, you must also specify the bg color.

[aspnetguy]

That is only a warning...css with warnings is still considered valid

[BiteMe]

That is only a warning...css with warnings is still considered valid

Yeah, but its unsightly. I think this is a pain in the jacksey.I dont want a valid page with warnings on it, it should be valid or not, ridiculous that this is not the case

[Jack McKalling]

:)Perfectionist aren't you I am too, I can find myself in your request. But some things can't be done, when one thing is wanted but the other too. Maybe is it possible to not let the anchors position on top of the background image? Or place colors instead of images? But you mustn't do that unless you are willing.

[aquatsr]

LOL CSS makes me tired and irritable too Of course, that's after 4-5 hours of tweaking and retweaking only to test on IE and see it was all for nothing. Good luck with your validation.

[murfitUK]

It gives a warning because users are able to change default settings for example through Accessibility. I do it myself sometimes if my eyes are feeling tired. I can change Windows to eg Black background / White text. This means that if your website has specified black text then I won't see it because my background is also black. Unless of course you have also specifical stated a white background - which validator is warning that you haven't.If you use IE you can try it yourself. Go to Tools->Internet Options, then click the Accessibility button on the general tab.You will see various options for ignoring colours and fonts that your website uses. You can also use your own stylesheet to override everything which can be fun if you've got a few minutes to spare!