Sent by Dave Silvester on 15 September 2004 14:02
On Wednesday 15 Sep 2004 13:02, Zoe M. Gillenwater wrote:
> I'm guessing that some people won't like this solution because many see
> the whole point of conditional comments as avoiding having to use any
> hacks at all. But I don't think there's anything technically wrong with
> it. It certainly would make it easy to remove IE hacks at a later time
> (in, like, 12 years ;-)).
Ahh, OK, perhaps I should have been more specific, because I only communicated
half of my point!
I only use this for stuff like simulating min-width and max-width, where the
"CSS" I have to use to do it doesn't validate.
So, my normal IE fixes (eg. box model stuff, jog fixes and so on) go in the
main layout CSS file, but the stuff that doesn't validate is kept in a
single, separate IEfix stylesheet and brought in with a conditional comment
so that other browsers only see the 100% valid stuff.
That way, my sites still validate properly, and the invalid CSS can easily be
removed at a later date, as well as allowing me to test multiple IEs
simultaneously, not having to mess with the registry and the other benefits I
outlined previously.
So, I still put my regular IE fixes in the main stylesheet, it's just that I
put the invalid stuff ("expression" and so on) in a separate one.
I only use conditional comments to fix stuff that requires a non-standards
compliant solution. As far as I'm concerned, having to individually fix
stuff to cater for one bad browser already counts as a hack, because it
should never have been necessary in the first place.
~Dave
--
Dave Silvester
Music Technology Junkie
Web: http://www.mu-sly.co.uk/
Email: sly at mu hyphen sly dot co dot uk
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
