Sent by Zoe M. Gillenwater on 3 December 2004 17:05
Michael Wilson wrote:
> Bob McClelland wrote:
>
>> Thanks to all who responded. The reason I'm labouring the point here is
>> because the very simple styling:
>>
>> width : 450;
>> w\idth : 400;
>>
>> type of thing works for me (IE 5.5, IE6, quirks and standards,
>> Mozilla 1,
>> Firefox 1, Opera 7), so why should I use anything else? Michael
>> (Wilson)
>> suggested adding an extra line (which is OK):
>>
>> width: 400px;
>> \width: 450px;
>> w\idth: 400px;
>
>
> I suggest using the second method because it supports browsers that do
> not understand the escapes (\) found in the hack. Consider the following:
Or, you can just wrap the whole thing in a star html hack and you don't
have this problem, because the browsers that have the problems with the
escapes never read the rule. So, your two options are:
* html #div {
width: 450px;
w\idth: 400px;
}
Advantage over one below: doesn't make NN4 crash (becoming less of an
issue as more people hide sheets from NN4)
#div {
width: 400px;
\width: 450px;
w\idth: 400px;
}
Advantage over one above: not sure actually, would Michael like to explain?
Zoe
--
Zoe M. Gillenwater
Design Specialist
Highway Safety Research Center
http://www.hsrc.unc.edu
______________________________________________________________________
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/
