CSS validation errors

[niceoutput]

Hey guys

I'm having a little problem that i can solve.
The problem is when i validate my css it gives me this 2 errors:

Lexical error at line 43, column 81. Encountered: "?" (63), after : ""

and

Value Error : display -moz-inline-box is not a display value : -moz-inline-box

The first i can't find it and the second it's the cform style sheet, it uses the moz-inline-box to display inline in firefox. The problem is that don't validate.
There's another way of bypass this?

Can someone help me, please?

I would love to have everything valid.

Thanks in advance

The url is: www.niceoutput.com

[Twey]

Since -moz-inline-box is a proprietary value, you're never going to get it to validate, and even if you did it would be a workaround rather than an actual fix (which defeats the point of validation).

The "?" sounds like you've got an invalid (probably invisible) character in one of your stylesheets. The safest way to do it is to delete the offending line (and maybe some of the lines around it) and rewrite them. You can go through it with a hex editor, but it's fiddlier.

Don't use XHTML yet. IE still doesn't support it. The irony is that, even though your page validates as XHTML, it's still not actually valid, because it's being sent with a text/html MIME type. It's perfectly valid XHTML, but that simply doesn't apply, because it'll be parsed as invalid HTML instead. If you want it to be parsed as XHTML, send it with an application/xhtml+xml MIME type, but be aware that this will prevent your page from rendering in IE. If you don't, stick with HTML 4.01 Strict, the latest markup standard with an user base.

[alexjewell]

Sure, Twey, IE doesn't support it...
However, IE doesn't support a lot of things.
I use XHTML because it makes more sense, is easier to write/edit, and I know that when it does become the normal markup language, I'll know it while other web designers are scrambling to learn it.

[Twey]

Sure, Twey, IE doesn't support it...
However, IE doesn't support a lot of things.Your point?
I use XHTMLIf you truly do use XHTML, and have made a conscious decision to serve it as application/xhtml+xml and thus abandon support for IE, there's no problem (well, there are currently still a few disadvantages [or lacks of theoretical advantages], but that's not very important). The problem arises when people don't understand the purpose of MIME types and serve XHTML as HTML, which is essentially the same as just serving invalid HTML.
it makes more senseThat's very vague.
is easier to write/editIt needn't be; it depends how you write your HTML. There's no law that says you can't write neat HTML, XHTML just enforces it a little more.
and I know that when it does become the normal markup language, I'll know it while other web designers are scrambling to learn it.Do you know it? Do you understand concepts such as mixing namespaces? There's not much syntax difference between HTML and XHTML 1.0 (hence why it's error-correctable to HTML), but the concepts behind them are quite dissimilar. Someone who serves XHTML as HTML won't understand or use features of XHTML that don't work in HTML. If you are using XHTML purely for educational purposes, it would be wise to use XHTML 1.1, which is not error-correctable into HTML.

[alexjewell]

Haha, ok. You win.