Christian Montoya wrote:
> css to my pure css solution, which could be hidden behind conditional
> comments to eliminate hacks?
Nothing wrong with your solution, but it substitutes a well-working part
of CSS standards with a CSS workaround - just because a browser isn't up
to the job.
I prefer to use a standard-spec that works in good browser, _as is_, and
mimic it in browsers that are not up to standards yet. In this case
that's 'min-width', which can be simulated by an ugly but well-working
I also prefer any proprietary solutions to be picked up by the CSS
validator and marked as "not valid", so I don't have to remember where I
put all the garbage, when the day comes that it isn't needed any more.
All browsers have some proprietary solutions either "on test" or in lack
of standard-support, so it is good that the validator can be given a
useful task once in a while - instead of being used as some kind of
quality-assurance. The fact that the validator isn't up to the standards
it's validating against, doesn't provide us with much of an assurance.
The CSS validator is a good tool though.
Of course, this is *nothing but* a personal preference. Most free minds
have some of those... :-)
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/