Adam Ducker wrote:
> Alan Gresley wrote:
>
>> Is this not valid CSS?
>> * html div { background: green; } /* IE6- */
>> *+html div { background: green; } /* IE7 */
>
> What you're outlining is valid and not a hack as far as I would define a
> hack, so I'm not sure what your point is. What Chris detailed as his
> solution is very much a hack that introduces errors and invalidates his CSS:
>
>> #main .content{
>> *padding: 0px;
>> *margin-bottom: -20px;
>> }
>
> You have to place hacks in your CSS knowing there is a certain amount of
> risk involved. I just don't see why when there is a much less riskier
> solution available you would want to go with the former.
>
> -Adam Ducker (http://adamducker.com)
Hello Adam,
My point is that you do not outline what risk. To say "when there is a
much less riskier solution available" is repeating a mantra that appears
in many places. It not based on reality but is more a warning to
beginners that sending alternative styles to a particular browser is
risker than sending the same style to all browsers.
I go with the former since it the cleanness way to support IE non
stardard behavior. Knowing what we know now, would Eric Meyers
have supported DOCTYPE switching to allow IE to keep supporting a non
standard quirks mode? The same can be asked, will the web community at
large keeps supporting non standard conditional comments?
--
Alan http://css-class.com/
Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [[email protected]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
