Gunlaug Sørtun:
Nothing wrong with 'conditional comments'
I always weigh it up with the cost of CC code size plus the server trip
for the file, vs. the code size for inline '* html hacks', usually the
latter method wins.
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
Darren West wrote:
I would advise against * html hacks though -
http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2005_12.html#a000598
The * html hack will not pose a problem as long as IE 7 fixes its other
bugs and inconsistencies (it will just ignore the * html like other good
browsers, and -
Paul Novitski wrote:
These coincidental clusters of bugs vary from one version of a
browser to the next which is why so many hacks are version-dependent.
Like browser-sniffing, relying on them makes for fragile code. You
can get away with using them for the time being, but where's the
long
